A question which the court was asked to consider recently was:

Does a conditional fee agreement continue to apply if the claim is amended part way through the proceedings?

Following obiter comments in the recent Court of Appeal decision in JCAM Commercial Real Estate XV Limited v David Haulage Limited[1]practitioners must now review their stance on the use of a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators (“NoI”) where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”). This is a blow to the flexibility of the administration process as a rescue procedure.

The Court of Appeal, in the case of Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc [2017] EWCA Civ 6, has held that it constitutes an abuse of process for a debtor to seek to set aside a second statutory demand on the basis of an argument previously raised and dismissed by the Court on its merits.

The background

Last years decision of the High Court in Kean v Lucas (Re J&R Builders (Norwich) Ltd) [2016] EWHC 2684 (Ch)puts into further context a number of cases concerning the rights of creditors to requisition a meeting to replace a creditors’ voluntary liquidator (or by analogy officeholders generally). But does it provide any answers?

References below to ‘Sections’ or ‘Rules’ are references to the Insolvency Act 1986 and Insolvency Rules 1986 respectively.

The Law at a Glance

After three years in the making the new insolvency rules[1] will come into force on 6 April 2017. The new rules create a consolidated, restructured and modernised take on the 1986 rules to take account of various legislative changes[2]. 

A Trustee in Bankruptcy is granted a wide statutory power under section 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) to ask the Court, at any time after the Bankruptcy Order has been made, to privately examine any person believed to be in possession of the Bankrupt’s “property” or of information relating to his affairs, to assist with his or her statutory investigations.

There have been a number of decisions over the past decade concerning the interpretation of section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1989 (“IA 1986”) together with section 11 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“WRPA”) in respect of whether a trustee in bankruptcy has the ability to compel a bankrupt to draw down payments from his personal pensions where he was eligible to make such an election but had not done so.

The legal position

The Football League has announced the toughening up of its insolvency rules.  Football League clubs will face stricter sanctions and be forced to repay the majority of their debts to unsecured creditors under new rules agreed at the competition’s annual conference.

For officeholders seeking to recover sums pursuant to s.127 Insolvency Act 1986, the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Express Electrical Distributors Ltd v Beavis and Others[2016] EWCA Civ 765 provides an interesting development (equally in relation to retrospective validation applications).

The Association of Business Recovery Professionals suggests that unsecured creditors, on average, receive 1% of the debt due to them from a company that undertakes a pre-pack sale and 3% in cases in which a going concern sale is achieved.  Given such poor prospects, investment of time in identification and reduction of insolvency risk can pay dividends.

There are a number of warning signs of supply chain risk, and it is key that you are familiar with these: