ACT 42/2015 AMENDS ARTICLE 1964 OF THE CIVIL CODE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS)

Thailand introduced reforms to its bankruptcy laws in 1998 in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Those reforms introduced business reorganisation provisions similar to the Chapter 11 provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code. Further amendments have been made to the Thai bankruptcy laws, which are now governed by the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483 (1940) as amended by the Bankruptcy Act (No. 7) BE 2547 (2004).

Turkey has amended and clarified the requirements for collecting public receivables. Changes particularly apply to obtaining documents to show an overdue debt, calculating the limitation period, as well as deleting records. Further explanatory information is also provided for existing requirements.

The Ministry of Finance-Revenue Administration published the General Communiqué regarding Collection of public receivables in Official Gazette number 29686 on 16 April 2016.

Key changes introduced by the amendments include:

Isher Fashions UK ("Isher") supplied Jet Star Retail Limited ("Jet Star") with goods. The contract for the supply of the goods contained retention of title provisions, but it was agreed between the parties that the contract implicitly gave Jet Star the right to deal with the goods despite Isher's claim to retention of title. The contract also gave Isher a right, by notice, to prevent Jet Star from selling or parting with possession of any goods supplied if Jet Star became the subject of formal insolvency proceedings.

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

The Limitation Act 1980 prescribes various periods of time in which a claim must be brought. In the event that this is not undertaken within the specified period, the cause of action will be statute barred and as such unenforceable.

In the case of a simple contract, the period is six years and in general begins to run from the date on which the cause of action accrued. In order to 'stop the clock', proceedings (a claim) will have to be brought.

When a company goes into administration, time does not stop running against its creditors' claims for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. This is different to where a company goes into liquidation as time does then stop running. The effect there is that the claim stays live whereas in an administration, once the limitation period has expired, the claim is time-barred.

In a recent case in the Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that information on a web page under the heading ‘about us’, that contained advice to users to obtain further information, was sufficient to absolve a trade organisation from its ‘guarantee’ responsibilities.

Customers who use members of the Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association (SPATA) can claim redress in the event that a member becomes insolvent. However, the redress applies only where the membership is a full membership, not an associate membership.

InDornoch Ltd & Ors v Westminster International & Ors [2009] EWHC 1782 (Admiralty) Mr Justice Tomlinson held that the sale by Westminster International (Westminster) of the wreck of a vessel, the Fariway for the sum of 1000 Euros to a related company was a transaction at an undervalue under s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which, in basic terms, provides that certain disposals made to connected persons for a value less than a fair value may be set aside by the court).

In Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL – Butterworths Law Direct 6.2.09 a receivership order had been made, paragraph 15 of which stated that 'Nothing in this order shall, in respect of assets located outside England and Wales, require the defendants and/or their directors to disobey the order of any court of competent jurisdiction in relation to such assets'.