Parties in the construction sector seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against a
company with the benefit of a statutory moratorium were given fresh guidance in the recent case of South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd [2017] EWHC 61.
Facts
In September 2013 Iverson Road Ltd (“Iverson”) engaged South Coast Construction Ltd (“SCC”) to complete various building works in London. In June 2016 SCC halted the work for non-payment of sums due by Iverson.
Summary
The insolvency legislation contains an unusual provision pursuant to section 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 enabling the court to review its own decision. The issue in this case was whether the High Court could review its own decision where that decision was an appeal of a bankruptcy order made by a District Judge in the County Court.
The Facts
The Facts
On 12 September 2012, the joint liquidators of a company brought claims for wrongful trading against its former directors, arguing that they knew (or ought to have concluded) before the date it entered liquidation that the company could not avoid insolvent liquidation. At first instance, Registrar Jones held that the directors were liable for wrongful trading and should pay compensation of £35,000. The directors appealed this decision.
The Decision
Key Points
- Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators
- Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings
The Facts
The Facts
An administrator was appointed over a company out of court and the administration extended on a handful of occasions. The administrator was then replaced by block transfer, but the administration subsequently expired before it was concluded.
The new administrator therefore applied for a new administration order to apply retrospectively from the date of expiry of the old order.
Summary
The court was prepared to provide for immediate release of administrators from office and to wind up a company without presentation of a petition.
The Facts
Administrators applied to court for their release, the winding up of the company and their appointment as liquidators.
The company’s remaining asset was a leasehold interest with an ultimate landlord, the immediate landlord having surrendered its interest.
Summary
The case provides guidance for liquidators as to the appropriate exercise to conduct when deciding whether the threshold of 25% in value of creditor claims has been reached in support of a request for a creditors’ meeting under s 171.
Key point
- A liquidator is not required to apply a ‘strict proof’ test to a creditor’s claim at the requisition stage of a creditors meeting.
The facts
In November 2014, the company entered into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation.
Key Points
- Provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of winding up order
- Any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period
The Facts
Background
It is a criminal offence to continue trading using the name of a company which has gone into insolvent liquidation (a prohibited name).
Judgment
The Court of Appeal has just ruled on a case relating to confiscation orders made against individuals who illegally trade under a prohibited name. In this case, the defendant was given community service, and ordered to pay a confiscation order of £100,000, plus costs. The individual appealed the confiscation order on various grounds.
The court concluded that:
In the recent case of SCI Senior Home (in Administration) v Gemeinde Wedemark, Hannoversche Volksbank eG, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down judgment on the question of whether a right in rem created under national law should be considered a "right in rem" for the purposes of Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Insolvency Regulation").
Background