The High Court ruling in Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207 provides helpful clarification on whether or not a landlord is liable  to pay business rates on an empty property following the liquidation of a tenant and the subsequent  disclaimer of the lease.

Background

Paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act allows an administrator to apply to court to sell assets subject to a fixed charge as if they were not subject to the security. The case of O’Connell v Rollings and others [2014] EWCA Civ 639 is a rare illustration of such an application and provides useful guidance on the factors the court will take into account.

The background

We have become used to a regular stream of decisions in which the courts are prepared to grant administration or winding up orders in respect of overseas companies which have COMI or an establishment in the UK. The decision inRe Buccament Bay Limited and another [2014] EWCH 3130 is a rare exception in which the court has refused to exercise its discretion.

The background

Singularis Holdings Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2014] UKPC 36

PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company Limited [2014] UKPC 35

The Privy Council gives credence to the concept of “modified universalism” (being the court’s common law power to assist foreign winding up proceedings) and notes some of the circumstances which would permit a “stranger” to a winding up order the opportunity to challenge that order.

The facts:

Key Points

• Paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Paragraph 13") permits a liquidator to do all acts "necessary" for the winding up and distribution of property.
• The decision as to what action is "necessary" is one for the liquidators (albeit subject to sanction).
• Nothing in FSMA 2000 prevented the investors from assigning their claims against the former operators..

The facts

Key Point

The Court has given guidance on when a company in administration has possession of third party assets allowing an administrator to apply for an order allowing him to sell them.

The Facts

The administrators of a company applied to Court under paragraphs 72 and 68 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 for permission to sell assets located on its freehold premises pursuant to a chattel hire contract with a group company (the "Assets").

The Decision

The recent case of Husky Group Ltd  (“Husky”) underlines the importance of following your lawyer’s advice and not pursuing the defense of the indefensible.

Anyone using arbitration clauses should note the Court of Appeal decision made on Monday 8 December, to the effect that a winding up petition is not automatically stayed because the petition debt arises from a contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause.

This important  development could  assist creditors  enforcing strong  claims against  debtors incorporated in many offshore financial centres as well as in England.

The English Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought against a recent High Court decision to stay a winding-up petition in favour of arbitration proceedings, in Salford Estates (No. 2) Limited v Altomart Limited [2014] EWCA 575 Civ.

In recent Court decisions, the balance between Administrators and Landlords has shifted backward and forwards with great regularity. Both sides have just learned that the goal posts have moved once more.

The judgment from a unanimous Court of Appeal last week has overruled the previous authorities on the issue of whether rent is payable as an expense in an Administration. In light of the decision in Jervis v Pillar Denton Ltd and Others, the decisions in Goldacre and Luminar are no longer of any effect.