No. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original finding, namely that no duty to consider AWA’s creditors had arisen. Whilst AWA’s directors had made provision for the contingent liabilities in question, this did not itself mean AWA was insolvent or close to insolvency. In fact, it was not, and so the duty to consider AWA’s creditors never arose.

Practical implications

Although this decision simply confirms the High Court’s original decision, it emphasises the care and vigilance with which directors of a company need to act when paying dividends.

Since the Construction Act came into force over 20 years ago, it has been a central tenet of the construction industry that a party can start an adjudication at any time, on any dispute (subject to questions of crystallisation or the dispute having already been decided).

However, it is interesting that two recent Court decisions seem to have called this into question - Michael Lonsdale v Bresco and Grove v S&T.

Yesterday, draft Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were published by the Government. In the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, the statutory instrument would amend UK legislation and EU legislation retained on exit day relating to insolvency.

The court has decided to allow a shareholder to pursue a derivative claim on behalf of a company that was placed into a pre-pack administration.

What happened?

Montgold Capital LLP v Ilska and others involved a restaurant company which was placed into a “pre-pack” administration, under which its entire business was sold, in late 2016.

Amid all the usual politics of the Government’s Budget this week, one seemingly low-key change might be of considerable interest to lenders and insolvency practitioners. The Chancellor announced that from 6 April 2020 HMRC will once again benefit from a Crown preference.

As part of its toolkit to improve rescue opportunities for financially-distressed companies, the Government has announced that:

"Companies will be supported through a rescue process by the introduction of new rules to prevent suppliers terminating contracts solely by virtue of a company entering an insolvency process."

The right to terminate contracts on this basis is already restricted for supplies of essential utilities and IT services. However, this only affects quite a narrow range of suppliers.

The Government has announced that it will legislate to prohibit the enforcement of certain contractual termination clauses ('ipso facto clauses').

As with other aspects of the response to recent insolvency and corporate governance consultations, this has given us pause for thought.

The Government has published its response and action plan following its consultation in March this year on reforming the UK’s corporate governance landscape in the context of insolvent companies.

In its original consultation, the Government put forward various proposals to deal with perceived deficiencies in the management of troubled companies that may be leading to poorer outcomes for creditors, employees and other stakeholders.

In March 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published a consultation on proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. That consultation included certain significant proposals, including extending liability to the directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.

The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.

In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.

What happened?