Back in October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAP”) was launched to very little fanfare. PAP is part of the Civil Procedure Rules which govern how parties deal with litigation claims through the County Court and is the first time that strict rules have been put in place for pre-action conduct on a debt matter. I wrote an article about PAP at the time to explain the ins and outs of it.

The Facts

PV Solar Solutions Ltd (the "Company") supplied and installed solar panels. When the government reduced preferential tariffs, the Company's profits were affected and it entered Administration in May 2013. The Company subsequently entered into voluntary Liquidation in November 2014.

Key Points

• There is a low threshold for the granting of an injunction to prevent the presentation of a winding up petition.

• The challenge against the debt in the statutory demand must be in good faith and have sufficient substance.

The Facts

The Facts

A liquidator applied for permission to amend his claim for fraudulent trading. The claim against the respondents related to purported defrauding of HMRC for non-payment of VAT.

Associate Martin Cox considers the recent High Court decision of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd, in which the court declined to exercise its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPRs”) to order the pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy held by a solvent insured. The article considers the extent to which the outcome in this case is consistent with the overriding objective that courts dispose of cases justly and at proportionate cost.

Court sets out procedure for contempt of court proceedings against bankrupt

For the first time, the Divisional Court has provided guidance on the correct procedure to be used in contempt of court cases falling under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

The High Court held that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

There are two aspects of wrongful trading and misfeasance that are of interest (i) board directors (and those advising the board) must be aware of the duties that the directors are subject to in performing their role as directors and the liability that attaches to breach of those duties and (ii) companies may be affected by the wrongful trading/misfeasance of customers/suppliers which impacts on trading.

In Endersby and Coote v Astrosoccer 4 U Ltd the High Court made a retrospective Administration order over a company that was subject to a winding-up petition to "cure" an invalid directors' out-of-court appointment of Administrators.

Key Points

• Insurers had no priority rights to collect premiums over the proceeds of a successful action they had insured, as a result of a drafting error.

• The High Court affirmed the general rule that, where a party has contracted for an unsecured right only, the court will not elevate it to a secured status.

The Facts