JWS has achieved a significant win on behalf of Linc’s liquidators, PPB Advisory, in their proceedings against the Queensland State Government in relation to Linc’s environmental liabilities. The Queensland Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned the Supreme Court judgment of Jackson J, which was the subject of an appeal hearing in September 2017 at which Bret Walker SC appeared for the liquidators.  

Directors against whom claims for a misfeasance have been intimated often turn to limitation and set off in defence of a request for the repayment or restoration of the relevant sums or property.

Misfeasance and limitation

Tiuta International Ltd (In Liquidation) v De Villiers Surveyors Ltd [2017] UKSC 77

Overview

Summary: In Wright (and another) (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation)) v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd, the court held that, when the BHS CVA terminated, the landlord was entitled to claim the full rent due under its lease. With more recent CVAs seeking to push the envelope even further, is the continued compromise of landlord creditors post-CVA the next issue to be tested in the courts?

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and others vs Shinners and others [2018] EWHC 186 Ch

Background

The applicants were creditors of VE Interactive Limited (In administration) (“VE”). VE encountered financial difficulties and its directors sought insolvency advice from insolvency practitioners at Smith and Williamson (“S&W”) and appointed them to advise on and effect a pre-pack sale of VE’s business and assets.

In the recent case of Reynard v Fox, the High Court struck out a claim brought by a litigant in person and cited the recent Supreme Court decision in Barton v Wright Hassall.

The court rejected the claimant's submission that this would be unjust because as a litigant in person, he did not have a detailed knowledge of the insolvency regulations. It ruled that the relevant regulations were not hard to find, difficult to understand or ambiguous.

Background

In an article that first appeared on LexisNexis on 26 February 2018, Jon Chesman examines a High Court decision which found the applicant liquidator of a company had made out her case that a transfer of stock from the company to the first respondent, a former director of the company, amounted to a preference and a transaction at an undervalue, so relief ought to be granted under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Breese (liquidator of Flexi Containers Ltd) v Hiley and others [2018] EWHC 12 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 77 (Jan)

Judgment was recently handed down in the Court of Appeal case of No 1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 250. It is the first reported decision on the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 in the residential context, but it has implications as much for commercial landlords and tenants, as for residential. The case examined important issues which arose from a long lessee of a flat applying to its landlord for consent to assign.

Over recent years I have been astounded that certain professionals, including accountants, insolvency practitioners (IPs) and solicitors, appear unable to recognise a conflict of interest if it were to stand up and slap them in the face.

Cynically, one could suggest that the blinkers have been on because it serves the interests of the professional concerned. Ignoring a conflict of interest is a fundamental breach of professional ethics, not something that can be brushed under the table for pure personal financial gain.

The Court of Appeal has released an important decision for landlords and tenants concerning applications for consent to assign a lease, overturning the High Court's earlier decision in No.1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd.

The Court of Appeal decided that one bad reason for a landlord refusing its consent will not render the entire decision to withhold consent unreasonable, so long as there are other reasons for the refusal which are good and free-standing.