The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal decision refusing to strike out a claim by a “one-man” company in liquidation, which had been the vehicle for a VAT fraud, against its former directors and overseas suppliers alleged to have been involved in the fraud: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 (see our post on the Court of Appeal decision 

Months of anticipation culminated in a successful result for the Liquidators of Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) on 22 April 2015 in a pivotal fraud case, whereby the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal involving the ‘illegality defence’, in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23.

Liquidators and creditors of insolvent companies will be breathing a collective sigh of relief at the recent Supreme Court judgment in Jetivia v Bilta, where it held that the illegality defence was not available where a company, through its liquidators, was making claims against the directors for breaches of their duties to the company.  In some ways the result was not that surprising, but should it have gone the other way, it would have deprived liquidators of a well-used weapon in their armoury for bringing claims against directors who have defrauded a company on its way to i

Case: (The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (Appellants) v Olympic Airlines SA (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 27)

Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited¹, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

After a stream of successes for lenders in valuation claims against valuers in recent times, the recent success for a valuer in an application for summary judgment in the case of Tiuta International Ltd (in liquidation) v De Villiers Chartered Surveyors Ltd offers some comfort to valuers. It demonstrates the courts’ unwillingness to follow creative attempts by lenders to establish a cause of action by disregarding the established legal principles in respect of causation in valuation claims.  

All insolvency officeholders will be concerned about the increased uncertainty created by the recent case Re Calibre Solicitors (In Administration) concerning challenges to their remuneration and expenses.

In Re Mark Irwin Forstater [2015] BPIR, the petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, Mr Forstater, on 13 June 2014. It first came before the court on 30 July 2014, when it was adjourned to allow the  debtor to take legal advice. At the adjourned hearing on 12 August 2014, the debtor indicated that he intended to pursue an IVA. The hearing was adjourned again to await the outcome of a meeting of creditors. The meeting of creditors was itself adjourned for 14 days from 1 September 2014 to 15 September 2014.

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

The insolvency of Scottish Coal Company Ltd ("SCC") has given rise to two recent Scottish Court of Session cases regarding performance bonds – East Ayrshire Council ("EAC") v Zurich Plc (24 June 2014) and South Lanarkshire Council ("SLC") v Coface SA (27 January 2015).