This month we review the court's view on open ended suspension of discharge from bankruptcy and the difficulty of 'substituting' a defendant in proceedings where the relevant limitation period has expired:
Suspension of discharge from bankruptcy should not be open ended
The High Court has held that only in the most serious cases of non-co-operation should a discharge from bankruptcy be suspended otherwise than on a specified period or condition basis.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
37268
Joseph Palazzo v. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada
(Que.)
Civil Procedure – Appeal – Prescription
The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent from 1968 to 2009. In 1980, the Applicant began selling life insurance and investment products of the Respondent until his retirement on May 1, 2009. During his employment as a sales representative, the Applicant was paid on a commission basis only.
36114 Miazga v. The Queen (Criminal law – Manslaughter)
A husband and wife jointly owned their property. In matrimonial proceedings, the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the property to the wife. Following his bankruptcy, the husband’s trustee applied to set aside the property transfer on the basis that it had been made at an undervalue, and the wife had given no consideration in money or money’s worth within the meaning of s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The wife contended that the fact that she had foregone ancillary relief claims was capable of amounting to consideration.
"`Staggering' legal fees in Boy Scouts Bankruptcy Case." So read the title of an article in The New York Times on May 11, 2021. According to the reporter, a "lawyer negotiating a resolution to the multi-billion dollar bankruptcy filed by the Boy Scouts of America billed $267,435 in a single month. Another charged $1,725 for each hour of work. New lawyers fresh out of law school have been billing at an hourly rate of more than $600." The bankruptcy judge presiding over the case has called the fee totals "staggering," said the reporter.
“[T]he Bankruptcy Code does not permit [an undersecured] creditor . . . to advance an unsecured claim for post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees,” held the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Nov. 27, 2017. Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. Iii v. Faison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195267, *8 (E.D. N. C. Nov. 27, 2017). Affirming the bankruptcy court, the district court agreed that “the Code is most properly interpreted to allow only oversecured creditors to add post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees.” Id., at *10.
Ministerial Decisions
Ministerial Decision No. 261/2016 Amending Ministerial Decision No. 1020/2009 (on rights of audience for Omani and non-Omani lawyers). This decision extends the period within which non-Omani lawyers may have a right of audience before the Appeal Courts and Supreme Court to 31 December 2020. Issued on 22 December 2016. Effective from 1 January 2017
Ministerial Decisions
Ministerial Decision No. 212/2016 Issuing the Regulations on cultural initiatives Issued on 5 December 2016. Effective from the day after its publication date
Ministerial Decision No. 238/2016 Determining the fees for enrolment in the table of lawyers Issued on 1 December 2016. Effective from the day after its publication date
Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch)
A recent decision of HHJ Cooke in the Chancery Division of the High Court in Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch) has provided some useful guidance on solicitors' duties to advise as to the risk of insolvency of the vendor when acting for purchasers in property transactions where deposits are held as agents for the vendor. It also provides guidance on solicitors' duties generally when advising on risks in transactions.
The Facts
INTRODUCTION