Padwick Properties Limited v Punj Lloyd Limited [2016] EWHC 502 (Ch)

FACTS

This case concerned a property in Stockport let at an annual rent of £784,268, where Padwick was landlord to a company named SCL. The defendant had guaranteed SCL's performance of its obligations.

The latest iteration of the Sun Capital litigation has confirmed once again what many restructuring professionals have known for a long time - that pension liabilities have a nasty habit of kicking investors where it hurts, often when least expected. Our recent blog explains the decision and provides some insights on the case.

The serious consequences of an adjudication of bankruptcy against an individual has long justified the strict requirement that bankruptcy petitions be personally served. Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 requires as much, and says that ‘service shall be effected by delivering to [the debtor] a sealed copy of the petition’. But what constitutes delivery where the debtor declines to accept the petition from the process server?

The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.

Picard, a trustee in bankruptcy, launched proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against Vizcaya, a BVI investment fund which had invested approximately $330m with Bernard Madoff via his New York firm. Prior to his fraud being discovered in late 2008, Vizcaya had been repaid $180m.Picard obtained a judgment against Vizcaya and its shareholders in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The judgment against Vizcaya was for $180m, $74m of which had been transferred to its Gibraltar holdings.

Commercial Litigation

When can you be deprived of costs where you better your Part 36 offer?

OTL was placed into compulsory liquidation. Prior to this it transferred monies to a trust located in HK of which N was perceived to be the principal trustee. The OR as liquidator applied for an order under s 236(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that N produce a witness statement with supporting documents in relation to the company’s affairs. The primary question for HHJ Hodge QC was whether s 236(3) of the IA 1986 could have extra-territorial effect as N was resident in HK.

Held

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding at trial of HHJ Bird (sitting in the High Court) that save where there is fraud, a debtor is not legally obliged to volunteer information to an assignee regarding his arrangement with the assignor. The dispute arose because Bibby, a factor (and ‘Assignee’), purchased debts from Morleys Ltd (‘the Assignor’), owed to it by HFD Ltd and MCD Ltd (the ‘Customers’/‘Debtors’). The contract between the Assignor and Customers was such that the latter were entitled to a rebate, at the beginning of each calendar year, on purchases made.

Recent developments in landlord and tenant law concerning the position of the outgoing tenant’s guarantor on the assignment of the lease can only be described as ‘bonkers’. A few years ago, the Good Harvest and House of Fraser cases confirmed that a parent company could not guarantee both of its subsidiaries on an intra-group assignment. Last month, in the EMI case, the High Court has confirmed that the assignment of a lease to the tenant’s guarantor is similarly void.

Happy anniversary

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a limitation order (providing for the restoration to the register of a dissolved company, C,  and the suspension of the limitation period during dissolution) and provided guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when making such an order.

Shortly before being placed into administration C entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement.  C later went into liquidation; however, the purchase price in respect of the sale was not received before the company was dissolved, over four years later.