Background

The Second Claimant (“Mr Hunt”) was appointed liquidator of the First Claimant (“BHUK”) on 11 December 2012. The action against the Defendant was commenced on 15 October 2013. By this time BHUK had already completed the process of administration and liquidation and the only material asset in the liquidation was the claim against the Defendant.

The Claim

In an earlier Judgment the Court at first instance ruled that Countrywide Surveyors Limited (the “Defendant”) was liable in deceit to Mortgage Express (the “Claimant”), in relation to 39 loans, further to property valuations produced by the Defendant.

The Commercial Court recently held that the Defendant, a former majority beneficial owner of the Claimant bank, had acted dishonestly and in breach of duties owed to the Claimant in causing the Claimant to advance monies in eight transactions which had not been repaid or recovered, to a borrower closely connected to the Defendant

Background

The High Court has considered whether the title to a freehold property could be re-vested in a company restored to the register of companies where the Crown had disclaimed its interest whilst the company was dissolved.

Background

This decision of the Chancery Division is a useful reminder to lenders of the Court’s power to set aside a transaction intended to defraud a creditor under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Facts

The Defendant, Mr Ahmed, was registered as the proprietor of two properties known as High Elm and Hilltop (the “Properties”). The Claimant advanced monies to be secured over the Properties by second legal charge. The Defendant fell into arrears and the Claimant commenced possession proceedings.

The High Court has recently considered whether directors were in breach of their duties after a company entered insolvency. Specifically, the Court considered whether it could exercise its discretion in accordance with section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, whereby the Court can order summary judgment against an officer of the company who has misapplied, retained or become accountable for money or property of the company, or been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of fiduciary or other duty in relation to the company.

The Claim

As of 1 October 2015, a number of changes have been introduced to insolvency law in the UK with more to follow on 10 October 2015 and then in April 2016.  The key developments implemented in October 2015 will affect both companies and individuals.

From 1 October 2015

Personal Insolvency

As well as serving as a useful reminder of the law surrounding wrongful trading and the operation of section 214 Insolvency Act 1986, this recent High Court decision clarified where the burden of proof lies in defending a wrongful trading case.

Background

The Government has, today, announced that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reforms for insolvency proceedings are being delayed for the time being, and will therefore not come into force on 1 April 2015.

Mr and Mrs D (the “Second and Third Defendants”) owned and controlled Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (the First Defendant) and were also major shareholders of DHL (a hotel company) which went into administration in September 2012 (the “Administration”).