The Construction Act 1996 gives a party to a construction contract the right to refer a dispute to adjudication "at any time"; however a recent TCC decision in England has held that this right is not absolute, where the party referring the dispute to adjudication is a company in liquidation and the dispute includes any claim for further sums to be paid to them.

The decision

It is generally the case (though not always!) that courts are reluctant to enforce monetary award adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation (CILs). This is because of the uncertainty surrounding the CIL’s ability to repay those sums should it later transpire it was not entitled to the award.

The Facts

This was an appeal of a decision of Chief Registrar Baister.

Dean and Richard Robbins were directors of a company which entered Creditors Voluntary Liquidation in February 2011. Dean Robbins was the sole shareholder. It appears that the Company had somewhat basic accounting practices and did not keep detailed books and records. It transpired that, prior to entering Liquidation, the Company had paid substantial sums to the Directors in various instalments, which the Liquidators sought to recover under three separate claims.

It is no great surprise that following the collapse of Carillion and with other retail businesses teetering on the edge, insolvency and corporate recovery is back in the news.

Some of the biggest casualties of entities like Carillion are the employees. Luckily, in the Carillion failure many jobs have been saved, but there is still a residual cost to employees who have to submit claims to the National Insurance Fund and the liquidator to recover payments for unpaid wages, holiday and sick pay.

Claims remain frequent in the construction industry, and so do insolvencies. In the wake of main contractor Carillion’s entry into liquidation, and rumours of forthcoming interest rate rises, it is worth looking at what effect different types of insolvency have on the ability to prosecute claims.

In Banca Turco Romana S.A. (in liquidation) v Cortuk and Others, the Commercial Court in London has underlined the need for applicants to give full and frank disclosure when seeking relief at ex parte (without notice) hearings.

As a result of substantial and serious failings, some apparently deliberate, Mr Justice Popplewell set aside an earlier freezing order he had made in favour of a liquidator and declined to continue it.

Background

Lord Bannatyne has issued his opinion in respect the Note of The Provisional/Interim Liquidator of Equal Exchange Trading Limited [2018] CSOH 35 which gives guidance in respect of the role of the court reporter when fixing the remuneration of a liquidator. The full opinion can be viewed here.

Background

Following the liquidation of BHS Ltd, the High Court was asked to consider whether a landlord could claim full rent as an administration expense following termination of the CVA.

Background

Wright and another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd concerned three principal insolvency processes applicable to companies under the Insolvency Act 1986:

Obtaining Decree

After obtaining a Decree (or judgment in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”.

Charge for payment (“Charge”)

In LRH Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Raymond Arthur Trew (1) Jason Marcus Brewer (2) and Derek O'Neill (3) [2018] EWHC 600 (Ch), LRH Services Ltd (LRH), acting by its liquidators, brought claims for breach of duty against three former directors. The claims arose from a reorganisation in 2009. LRH did not trade but had two trading subsidiaries (R and E) and it was wholly owned by CSGH, which also had another subsidiary in addition to LRH, CSG. Two of the directors of LRH were substantial shareholders in CSGH.

The reorganisation