Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

The Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited Judgment in the case of Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis, confirming that businesses which are in administration are not exempted from TUPE.

Agreements with administrators often contain provisions to the effect that any claim against the company in administration will rank only as an unsecured claim and not as an expense of the administration. Although such provisions are common, there has always been some doubt as to their efficacy.

 The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.

What does this mean?

Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and  will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.

What should employers do?

The Court of Appeal has clarified in the case of Key2law (Surrey) LLP v Gaynor De’Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567 that administration proceedings do not constitute “insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor” in terms of regulation 8(7) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and therefore fall outside the scope of regulation 8(7).

With the depressing news that more than 20,000 Scots will go bust in 2012, and an average of 25 Scots firms a week will go under this year, it has never been more important to be alert to payment disputes.

The First-tier Tribunal has issued its decision in the case ofM Gilbert (t/a United Foods) v HMRC, one of the first cases concerning a claim for entrepreneurs' relief to reach the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal was asked to decide whether a taxpayer had disposed of part of his business or, as HMRC argued, simply sold some of the assets used to carry on the business.

A common fact in any transaction, is the effect of human relations, daily life and commercial realities. The legal do's and don'ts are often overtaken by practicalities. An example is a need for a tenant to enter into occupation of premises.

The recent case of Mann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd (in Administration) v Longmint Aviation Limited Ltd dealt with the rights of an occupier going into possession of premises and paying rent, but without any form of written lease or licence.

Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky SA & Others

[2011] UKSC 50

We covered this case back in Issue 120. The case has now reached the Supreme Court where the decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned. In doing so, Lord Clarke adopted the interpretation of the bond which was most consistent with business common sense.

An English rugby club (an unincorporated association of its members) engaged the services of Barnes Webster & Sons (BWS), a construction company. The club’s treasurer signed the contract, which was witnessed by Davies, the club’s president. The club agreed to pay BWS a fixed price plus additional amounts for certain variations in the work, should they arise. The variations were required, but the club did not pay the £147,000 bill for them that BWS presented. BWS made a demand on Davies personally, which he moved to set aside.

One exception to the otherwise far-reaching scope of the automatic stay is the “police power” exception, which permits a governmental unit to commence or continue an action or proceeding that is in furtherance of its police and regulatory powers (section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code). In the past, bankruptcy courts have held that the “police power” exception extends to actions taken by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the agency charged with protecting pension benefits in private-sector defined pension plans.