The Insolvency and Companies Court, in A Company -v- Visionary Future LLC & ors. (unreported), has dismissed an application by a company seeking to strike out, or alternatively restrain advertisement of, a winding-up petition brought by creditors. The judgment underlines the critical importance of providing proper and substantiated evidence in insolvency proceedings.
Lewis Silkin acted for the petitioners (the respondents in the application), who have since been successful in winding up the company in question.
Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.
Introduction
Introduction
Equity of Exoneration and Joint Liability: Insights from Armstrong & Anor v Harrow [2025] EWHC 1790 (Ch)
On 18 July 2025, ICC Judge Mullen handed down judgment in Armstrong & Anor v Harrow [2025] EWHC 1790 (Ch) denying Mrs Harrow’s claim for an equity of exoneration to keep the full proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.
Key Points:
- INTRODUCTION:
Madam Bernice was a well-known entrepreneur in Nigeria in the 1970s and 1980s. She had a big business dream to start a family fashion business that would outlive her and be a blessing to future generations. That dream did come to fruition, as “Bernice Fashion Enterprise” was established sometime in 1972 and became a registered company in 1978, acquiring a new name “Bernice Fashion Limited.” (real names withheld).
1. The CMS Law-Now article “Arbitration agreement does not prevent winding up petition” updated the position in England & Wales following the Privy Council decision in Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16 (“Sian”).
The High Court of Australia (being Australia’s highest court) refused special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s decision inCEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Cooper (as liquidator)[2025] FCAFC 47. The Court held that the Full Court’s decision turned on the application of the relevant provision to the particular facts of that case and did not raise any broader question of principle.
Introduction
Retention of Title (“ROT”) clauses, although still not commonly used in India, are a well-established measure in various international jurisdictions to secure the interests of sellers in commercial transactions. An ROT clause allows a seller to retain ownership or title to the goods supplied until a specified condition, usually payment in full, is met by the buyer.