This article first appeared in Corporate Rescue & Insolvency, December 2018.

Key points

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

The Court applied sections 423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) to the transfer of an interest in a Ukrainian television station. When analysing the Defendant's actions the Court considered the transaction was made for a prohibited purpose.

Background

To no great surprise, the Global Corporate v Hale appeal decision has gone against the director. The Court of Appeal handed down the eagerly awaited judgment on 27 November 2018.

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL on 15 November 2018.

Crumpler and another (Joint liquidators of Peak Hotels and Resorts Ltd in liquidation) v Candey Ltd, [2018] EWCA Civ 2256, [2018] All ER (D) 78 (Oct).

What are the practical implications of this case for practitioners?

A High Court Master has found that the court must maintain privilege in the documents of a dissolved company unless and until there is no prospect of the company being restored to the register: Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP: [2018] EWHC 3010 (Ch).

Directors cannot avoid unlawful distribution claims by asserting that dividends should be retroactively re-categorised as remuneration for services they have provided to the company, the Court of Appeal has confirmed in Global Corporate v Hale [2018] EWCA Civ 2618

The court confirmed that the legality of a payment to directors must be tested at the time when it is made. Any "subsequent realisation that the distributions should not have been made" will not cure an unlawful distribution.

When appointing administrators out of court, there is requirement to specify the date and time the appointment is made. This is a development arising since April 2017 as a result of the Insolvency Rules 2016 coming into force. Given that appointments are generally effective at the point of filing, it has been unclear how (absent a crystal ball) practitioners should address the requirement when preparing the Notice of Appointment form. A recent High Court decision resolves the issue, confirming that a notice making reference to a future filing is acceptable.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.

Since the Construction Act came into force over 20 years ago, it has been a central tenet of the construction industry that a party can start an adjudication at any time, on any dispute (subject to questions of crystallisation or the dispute having already been decided).

However, it is interesting that two recent Court decisions seem to have called this into question - Michael Lonsdale v Bresco and Grove v S&T.