Key Points 

• Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts

• No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive

• Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation

The Facts

The Facts

A debtor entered into an IVA with his creditors. He complied with the terms of the IVA and a certificate of compliance was issued by the IVA supervisor. Subsequently, the debtor received two PPI settlement payments from banks. The supervisor applied to court for directions as to whether the payments were caught by the trust created by the IVA. The Deputy District Judge held not and the High Court agreed on appeal. The supervisor was given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Decision

Key point

• A recalibration of the issues to be considered when adjudicating on COMI in individual bankruptcy.

The Facts

Since 6 April 2016 debtors apply online to be made bankrupt, rather than petitioning the court. Their application is considered by an adjudicator who, if deemed appropriate, will make the bankruptcy order.

The case confirmed that the provisions of the CPR apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of a winding up order. The case further stated that any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period.

Facts

Facts

Facts

This case concerned the rejection by the liquidators of Saff One LLP (‘LLP’) of a proof of debt lodged by ESS. The issue was whether a tax mitigation structure involving a loan to LLP for purported investment in the Ultra Green Scheme gave rise to a provable debt if the monies ‘loaned’ passed in a circle and no such investment was made.

Facts

A Trustee in Bankruptcy (‘TiB’) applied for committal of a bankrupt (‘B’) for contempt for repeated failure to provide financial information sought in conjunction with an application for an Income Payment Order (‘IPO’).

Facts

Mr Mikki is a photographer (‘the Bankrupt’). Bankruptcy was 2010 when pertinently he had a bank account with £1,500 in it and a car.

The £1,500 was spent, but £3,000 was subsequently paid in. When the account was frozen it again had £1,500 in it. After investigations it was determined that this money derived from post-bankruptcy income and was returned. Those investigations took some time and the Bankrupt demanded penal interest.

Whether third party claimant entitled to pre-action disclosure of currently solvent insured's insurance policy

Following obiter comments in the recent Court of Appeal decision in JCAM Commercial Real Estate XV Limited v David Haulage Limited[1]practitioners must now review their stance on the use of a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators (“NoI”) where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”). This is a blow to the flexibility of the administration process as a rescue procedure.