At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.

Key point

The Joint special administrators of an investment banking entity succeed in obtaining a direction to allow them to distribute client assets quickly.

Facts

Key point

A statutory demand designed to achieve some connected or collateral purpose is not necessarily invalid.

The facts

Key points

The court has discretion to allow an insolvency practitioner to recover fees and costs from work done in realising assets for the benefit of a third party but it cannot be exercised where an insolvency practitioner takes action in relation to assets outside in the insolvency estate of his own accord.

The facts

In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others has provided office holders with greater (but not final) clarity on the operation of the ‘illegality defence’.

Many readers will be familiar with the concept of the illegality defence, otherwise referred to by the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”.  It is a rule of law which provides that a claimant cannot rely on its own wrongdoing to found a claim against another party. 

RE: HARVEST FINANCE LTD; JACKSON & ANOTHER V CANNONS LAW PRACTICE LLP & OTHERS [2014]

This case concerns the provision of documentation under s236 IA 1986. The documentation requested by the liquidators was extensive and the Respondents wished to claim their time costs (£40,381) of providing the same.  The Court held that whilst it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the insolvent estate, it was not minded to do so in this case.

The Facts

ASTRA RESOURCES PLC V CREDIT VERITAS USA LLC [2015] EWHC 1830 (CH)

It is trite law that the court will grant an injunction restraining the advertisement of a winding-up petition where the petition amounts to an abuse of process.

E: BW ESTATES LTD; RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER V TURPIN AND ANOTHER [2015] EWHC 517 (CH) (“RVT”)

This decision followed an application by creditors (“the Randhawas”) of BW Estates Ltd (“the Company”) against the administrators of the Company that their remuneration should be deemed excessive and either disallowed entirely or reduced to such extent as the court thought appropriate.

The Facts

Over the last seven months there has been a spate of cases dealing with the relationship between arbitration law and insolvency law.

Winding-up petitions and arbitration clauses