In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC), Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd (Peel Port) applied for pre-action disclosure of the defendant's insurance policy under Civil Procedure Rule 31.16. Peel Port was not able to rely on the provisions in Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 because the defendant was not insolvent. Peel Port argued that it was highly probable that rights against insurers would be transferred to them under the 2010 Act in due course.

The Technology and Construction Court in England has refused pre-action disclosure of the insurance policy of a currently solvent insured, notwithstanding that a successful claim would have resulted in the insolvency of the insured.

Factual background

In a judgment handed down on 17 March 2017 (but which has only recently become publicly available) in Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio,1 Mr Justice Teare held that an After The Event (ATE) insurance policy put before the court in purported satisfaction of a security for costs order, was not in a reasonably satisfactory form.

The English courts have recently wrestled with the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) in a case about the lifting of the automatic stay on proceedings against Korean company STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd

On 24th August 2016 the claimant issued protective proceedings against four defendants for damages in excess of £10 million in relation to alleged defects in the design and construction of a high bay warehouse and associated infrastructure ("the Works"). The third defendant ("Twintec") was responsible for the design and construction of a steel fibre reinforced concrete slab, which formed part of the Works, and was insured by Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance PLC ("RSA").

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a company must have a settled intention to appoint an administrator before it can file a notice of intention to appoint and benefit from the interim moratorium that applies as a result. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry, in this month's update:

The court has stressed the importance of validly serving a Statutory Demand before presenting a Bankruptcy Petition. The creditor must do all that is reasonably required to bring the service of the Statutory Demand to the attention of the debtor. Without effectively serving a Statutory Demand on the debtor, presenting a valid Bankruptcy Petition is impossible.

Background

This article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017, 30(5), 85-87.

In an earlier edition of this publication I identified what appeared to be a growing trend for the making of a draconian form of order suspending the discharge of bankruptcies. This form of order is typically associated with the case of Mawer v Bland where Mrs Justice Rose upheld on appeal the following order made by Chief Registrar Baister:

Procedural framework

Paragraphs 49 to 55 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 provide the statutory framework within which administrators seek approval of their proposals.

An administrator must make a statement setting out proposals for achieving the purpose of the administration within eight weeks of the company’s entry into administration and the administrator must seek a decision from the company’s creditors as to whether the creditors approve those proposals or not.

A case of two companies, one incorporated in Dubai and the other in England, involved in a network of businesses producing contrived fancy colour diamond valuations were eventually wound up by English courts in the interest of the public.