The Facts

Husband and wife petitioned for divorce in 2008. In January 2009, a statutory demand was served on the husband and a bankruptcy petition was presented in March 2009. In June 2009, husband and wife agreed a consent order whereby the husband was to make periodical payments to the wife and daughter and to repay around £1.4m to the wife.

Summary

The insolvency legislation contains an unusual provision pursuant to section 375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 enabling the court to review its own decision. The issue in this case was whether the High Court could review its own decision where that decision was an appeal of a bankruptcy order made by a District Judge in the County Court.

The Facts

The Facts

On 12 September 2012, the joint liquidators of a company brought claims for wrongful trading against its former directors, arguing that they knew (or ought to have concluded) before the date it entered liquidation that the company could not avoid insolvent liquidation. At first instance, Registrar Jones held that the directors were liable for wrongful trading and should pay compensation of £35,000. The directors appealed this decision.

The Decision

Key Points

• Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators

• Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings

The Facts

The Facts

An administrator was appointed over a company out of court and the administration extended on a handful of occasions. The administrator was then replaced by block transfer, but the administration subsequently expired before it was concluded.

The new administrator therefore applied for a new administration order to apply retrospectively from the date of expiry of the old order.

Summary

The court was prepared to provide for immediate release of administrators from office and to wind up a company without presentation of a petition.

The Facts

Administrators applied to court for their release, the winding up of the company and their appointment as liquidators.

The company’s remaining asset was a leasehold interest with an ultimate landlord, the immediate landlord having surrendered its interest.

Summary

The case provides guidance for liquidators as to the appropriate exercise to conduct when deciding whether the threshold of 25% in value of creditor claims has been reached in support of a request for a creditors’ meeting under s 171.

Key point

• A liquidator is not required to apply a ‘strict proof’ test to a creditor’s claim at the requisition stage of a creditors meeting.

The facts

In November 2014, the company entered into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation.

Key Points

• Provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of winding up order

• Any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period

The Facts

Background

It is a criminal offence to continue trading using the name of a company which has gone into insolvent liquidation (a prohibited name).

Judgment

The Court of Appeal has just ruled on a case relating to confiscation orders made against individuals who illegally trade under a prohibited name. In this case, the defendant was given community service, and ordered to pay a confiscation order of £100,000, plus costs. The individual appealed the confiscation order on various grounds.

The court concluded that:

Summary

Court of Appeal has confirmed that a bankrupt cannot be compelled to draw down pension rights for the benefit of creditors.

Facts

Following the supportive High Court decision in the case of Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 900 (Ch), the trustee in bankruptcy in this case applied for an order compelling a discharged bankrupt to draw down his pension rights for the benefit of his creditors.