Background to the Case

The case of Davey v Money and Anor (2018) EWHC 766 (Ch) should serve as a gentle warning to secured creditors to be aware of the level of their involvement in the administration of a customer.

Background

Angel House Development Limited (“AHDL“), a property development company, borrowed £16 million from Dunbar Assets Plc (“Dunbar“) in order to fund the purchase and redevelopment of a property, Angel House, in Tower Hamlets. Dunbar took security for the loan(s) in the form of a debenture.

A recent decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) [2018] (TCC) has held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication when that dispute includes (whether in whole or in part) determination of any claim for further sums said to be due to the referring party from the responding party. 

Background

Background to the Case In this case, the High Court scrutinised the conduct of the administrators appointed by a secured lender, Dunbar Assets plc, over a company, Angel House Developments Limited, whose sole asset was an office block in the London Docklands. The sole shareholder of the company had accused the administrators of breaching a number of duties.

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has delivered a significant judgment in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) where the company seeking to refer a dispute to adjudication was in liquidation. The substance of the dispute related to the contractor's claim for payment allegedly due for work completed, and damages for loss of profits.

The contract and the facts

The UK and the US have historically been perceived as leading jurisdictions in the development of restructuring and insolvency law – to the extent that dozens of local insolvency regimes around the world have been modelled on some combination of their processes. Both regimes are highly sophisticated, and feature well-developed legislation supported by decades of case law that offers both debtors and creditors alike a degree of certainty and predictability that is not always available in other jurisdictions.

A recent TCC decision highlights the dangers of withholding payment against contractors with a view to pushing them into insolvency. The court allowed the recovery of insolvency professional fees as well as a substantial sum reflecting a reduced settlement reached with a third party on a separate project. The court’s decision has ramifications for any party seeking to withhold large payments under a construction contract against a party who is likely to suffer serious cash-flow pressure as a result.

It is common knowledge to many that parties to a construction contract have the right to adjudicate at any time. This is a right implied by statute and a right that cannot be fettered. However, it seems the limits of such a right are now somewhat more nuanced. In the recent case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 Fraser J has considered how the Insolvency Rules and Adjudication work together and what this means for the right to adjudicate at any time.

From time to time the statutory rights available to parties to construction contracts appears to come into conflict with other sets of provisions that also claim to govern the same areas of dispute. Perhaps the best known such clash, between adjudication and the effect of insolvency, was that explored in the Scottish case of Melville Dundas Limited (in Receivership) v George Wimpey UK Limited[1] in 2007.

The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.

Freezing Orders: What Are They?