A recent High Court decision considered the duty of Law of Property Act (LPA) receivers when selling secured property to an associated company of the creditor. The LPA receivers were chartered surveyors, appointed by the creditor in respect of a cider factory over which it had security and were alleged to have acted in bad faith by preferring the interests of the creditor over the interests of the debtor company.

Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

It was a painful outcome for the administrator of ARY Digital UK Limited (“ARY”) when he was found in breach of duty and liable to pay £743,750.

The case of Brewer and another (as joint liquidators of ARY Digital UK Ltd) vIqbal [2019] EWHC 182 (Ch) reminds office holders of the importance of understanding what assets they are selling, ensuring that correct marketing processes are employed and obtaining proper valuations.

How deep is the “pool of facts in which it is permissible to fish for the basis of the new cause of action” if a party wishes to benefit from the ‘relation back’ doctrine when calculating limitation periods? The Court of Appeal gives guidance on the meaning of “the same or substantially the same facts” for the purpose of CPR r 17.4(2).

Imagine this: a contractor undertakes to perform certain works by a specified date, and agrees to pay liquidated damages (LDs) if it does not complete by that date (subject to any entitlement to an extension of time). The contractor, through its own fault, is late and does not complete by the specified date. In fact, the contractor is very late and, in the end, the employer terminates the contract before the works are completed (as it is entitled to do under the contract).

• The Court of Appeal has given guidance to insolvent companies about whether to commence an adjudication.
• There is an important distinction to be drawn between a company in a CVA and one in liquidation.
• Parties need to be careful when making general reservations to an adjudicator's jurisdiction.

What's it about?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered two appeals in which the interplay between the construction adjudication process and the insolvency regime was considered; Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited (see my blog of 28 September 2018 on the TCC decision) and Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited.

In a decision to be welcomed by ratepayers, the Court of Appeal in Rossendale Borough Council and others v. Hurstwood Properties (A) Limited and others [2019] EWCA Civ 364 has confirmed that certain types of mitigation schemes are not sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and transfer liability for business rates to the beneficiaries of those schemes.

Liability for business rates

The Court of Appeal decision in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd turns on the wording of that particular contract, but was, in part, unexpected.

This decision does not reflect the generally held view (prior to this case) that liquidated damages will be recoverable until the point of termination at least.

Background

Regulation 7(1) of TUPE usually makes a dismissal automatically unfair if it is for a reason connected with the business transfer. But what if the reason for the dismissal is actually good old personal dislike and the transfer is just the context in which it surfaced?