The Facts

This was an appeal by liquidators to the Court of Appeal from a decision refusing to grant an order that payments made to the respondent directors totalling nearly £450,000 were preferences.

By the time of the appeal, it was accepted that the payments were made within the relevant time and with the requisite intention to prefer.

Previous Decision

Validation orders under s127 Insolvency Act 1986 will only be made:

• in special circumstances

• where a particular transaction is one that is in the interests of the creditors as a whole; and

• the circumstances warrant the overriding of the pari passu principle

The Facts

Key Points

• Interpretation of EU case law on protection of pension payments on employer insolvency not “entirely free from doubt”

The Facts

The claimant (C) was a member of the T&N defined benefit pension scheme from 1971 to 1998. In 2006, the scheme entered a PPF assessment period and C calculated that his pension under the PPF would, as a result of caps and limitations on indexation, be roughly 67% less than what he had previously expected.

Appointment of receivers in respect of a group entity takes “control” of that entity outside the group for tax purposes, but does this decision have more far reaching consequences?

The First Tier of the Tax Tribunal heard appeals against closure notices issued by HMRC denying claims for group relief by a group of companies, including a company over whose assets a fixed charge receiver (FCR) had been appointed (the Borrower).

Key Points

• Trustees in bankruptcy entitled to more than return of shares wrongfully transferred by bankrupt
• Trustees also entitled to recover loss in the value of shares
• Appropriate basis of valuation was fair value (not market value)

The Facts

Key points

• Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
• Administrators can agree solicitors’ fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
• The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment

The facts

Key points

• There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
• This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements

The facts

The facts

The Facts

On 31 July 2012, a bankruptcy order was made in respect of Mr Dean Jonathan D’Eye on the basis of a statutory demand dated 11 July 2011.

During their investigations, his trustees in bankruptcy discovered that Mr D’Eye had made a payment of £321,919 to his father on 24 January 2012 (the Payment) and, after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition on 28 May 2012, a significant portion of this money had then been used to purchase a flat (the Flat).