It wasn't so long ago that retention of title (RoT) clauses took somewhat of a backseat. Afterall, deciding who owned what on a construction site given the number of parties involved in any one project was not an easy task. However, given current market conditions and the increase of buyer insolvency, many suppliers are turning their attention back to the clause in an attempt to claw back their goods.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.

In June 2007 we reported on the decision in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited. Although the case has given rise to a great deal of debate, until now there has been no subsequent reported case in which the court has had to consider whether and how a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) might fairly effect a compromise of a landlord's claim against a guarantor of its tenant.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

There is something positively Dickensian when looking at the anti-deprivation rule (the "rule") and images come up of scribes working in dark and dismal rooms scratching their quills by dim candle light. Indeed, the rule dates back to the nineteenth century and many lawyers would be hard-pressed to explain it even if they are able to grasp the contradictions and fine distinctions thrown up by the old cases. In essence, the rule provides that a contractual provision is void if it provides for the transfer of an asset from the owner to a third party upon the insolvency of the owner.

In a recent opinion (Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co. SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43) handed down in the final days of the House of Lords, their Lordships clarified a point which may be of some significance for successful claimants seeking to enforce a Court order against corporate defendants.  

In a decision handed down just before the end of term, auditors have won an important House of Lords ruling limiting their liability in cases where a “one man” company is used as a vehicle for fraud. The Law Lords dismissed by a majority of three to two a negligence claim brought against an audit firm for failing to detect a massive fraud at Stone & Rolls, a trading company that fell in the late 1990s – holding that the liquidators could not bring a claim for damages when the company itself was responsible for the fraud.

Background

Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky

We have received a number of urgent enquiries about the outcome of the Kookmin Bank case, which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal, in London. The judgment was issued at the end of May 2010 and held, in effect, that refund guarantees -- relating to advance payments of about US$46 million -- were unenforceable by the Buyers to whom the guarantees had been issued. Given the importance of refund guarantees to our shipping and banking clients, we are issuing this summary of the judgment and its general significance.

Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:  

• increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and  
• prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.  

A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.

Counter-indemnity rights