In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.

Background

The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil. However, it could upset the delicate balance between debtors and creditors under UK insolvency law.

One of the biggest risks faced by an employer in a construction project is the impact of the main contractor becoming insolvent, particularly in the current economic climate where it has become clear that main contractors are not regarded as being “too big to fail”.

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision granting a non-party costs order against an insolvent company’s director and majority shareholder. The court cited the claimant’s failure to warn the non-party of its intention to seek such an order as fatal to the application: Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC v WPMC Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] EWCA Civ 2005.

In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.

The Supreme Court has held that a principal was entitled to recover payments collected by its agent on its behalf following the agent's insolvency: Bailey and another (Respondents) v Angove's PTY Limited (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 47.

The case of Re Company A-E [2015] HCMP 2019/2015 demonstrates that the Court will take a practical approach in determining whether a funding arrangement infringes upon the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. The Court will consider commercial factors, such as the underlying rationale for the funding arrangement and the commercial character of the funder, alongside its analysis of the common law principles.

The recent case of The Joint Official Liquidators of A Company v B and Another has confirmed that a liquidator of a foreign company can seek the Hong Kong Companies Court’s assistance by applying for orders for the production of information and documents without the need to also apply to wind up that company in Hong Kong.

Background

The Supreme Court has today ruled on the ranking of certain pension liabilities when issued to companies in administration or liquidation.

The Court of Appeal has held that a settlement agreement between a bank and a group of companies which included releases of the parties’ affiliates prevented the companies from later pursuing claims against their own affiliates. Those affiliates were held to include former administrators appointed by the bank and the administrators’ solicitors: Schofield v Smith [2022] EWCA Civ 824.