The recent case of James William Stares v Elgin Legal Ltd [2016] EWHC 2523 (Ch) is notable as it considers whether a former administrator can apply for an administration order and, if such an order can have retrospective effect.

The aim of a payment action is to recover monies due. Obtaining a positive judgment from the court is just the first step in that process. The party with the benefit of the judgment still needs to enforce the order if payment is not made. This guide describes what enforcement means in practice and the approach to enforcement in Scotland.

Getting started

To enforce a court decree in Scotland, creditors need to do the following:

A company in liquidation appealed against a decision that its claim against the directors, for breach of fiduciary or statutory duty in relation to distribution in specie of the claimant company’s shareholding in another company, was time-barred.

The English High Court were persuaded to lift the automatic stay imposed under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations (SI 2006/1030) in relation to Korean proceedings, to allow English litigation proceedings to be continued by an unsecured creditor.

The Court of Appeal resolves some of the conflict between insolvency and pensions law in its decision on Horton v Henry.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision of the Deputy Judge in Horton v Henry (2014) confirming that a trustee in bankruptcy cannot access uncrystallised funds in a bankrupt's pension arrangements (or force the bankrupt to access them himself).

This article was first published in Practical Law.

With the long-awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in Horton v Henry, the Looking Glass decision in Raithatha v Williamson is finally laid to rest.

Facts

The appellant is a company trading in electrical goods which regularly supplied Edge Electrical Ltd ('Edge'). Their standard terms provided Edge with a short period of credit before payment was required.

Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified

We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).

In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.

In the case of Re BW Estates Ltd the High Court considered the validity of a directors’ out of court appointment in circumstances where there was technically an inquorate directors’ board meeting.

The English High Court in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) [2016] EWHC 2417 (Ch), in one of a series of cases arising from the Lehman insolvency, has had to consider (among other issues) the meaning of “Default Rate” under the ISDA Master Agreement.