In a judgment useful to insolvency practitioners, a court has recently confirmed that liquidators are not personally liable for payment of dividends. In Lomax Leisure v Miller and Bramston [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) Miller and Bramston faced personal claims on dividend cheques they had cancelled, after receiving a pending application from a creditor whose claim they had rejected. Miller and Bramstom were later replaced by a new liquidator who brought claims in the name of the company and various creditors.

Background

It is over 10 years since the House of Lords decision in the case of Sharp v Thomson (1997 SC (HL) 44) threw a judicial cat amongst the pigeons of property and insolvency law in Scotland. The House of Lords, overturning decisions of both the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session, decided that ownership of a property passed unencumbered by, in this case, a crystallised floating charge, even though the disposition of that property (which had been delivered before the floating charge crystallised) had not yet been registered in the Property Register.

The case of Law Society v Dixit Shah (2007) EWHC 2841 (Ch) arose from the intervention of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors into an association of firms owned by Dixit Shah which traded under "the BJ Brandon Group" name. The Law Society alleged that the OSS discovered that around £12.5 million of client money had been misappropriated by Mr Shah.

This Act received Royal Assent in July 2007 but no date for implementation has been published yet.

In addition to the provisions contained in this Act aimed at improving the working of the tribunals system and increasing judicial diversity, are several sections that will be of interest to financiers and insolvency professionals: 

An agreement to pay off part of a judgment debt owed jointly with others will not of itself amount to consideration sufficient to prevent a creditor going against a debtor for the unpaid balance of the judgment.

An agreement signed by a director on behalf of his company containing a promise by the company to pay for goods to be ordered in the future, rendered the director personally liable where he knew at the time of signing that the company was insolvent and had no prospects of becoming solvent.

The court will not always set aside a property transfer order in matrimonial proceedings where the party transferring the property, as part of a clean break order, becomes bankrupt shortly afterwards, and there are allegations of lack of consideration or transfer at an undervalue.

Background to Re Permacell

The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.