In what is likely to be one of this year’s landmark insolvency decisions, the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale has considered the interaction between insolvency set-off and adjudication, though the judgment is likely to have application to other dispute resolution processes including litigation and arbitration.
In what is likely to be one of this year’s landmark insolvency decisions, the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale has considered the interaction between insolvency set-off and adjudication, though the judgment is likely to have application to other dispute resolution processes including litigation and arbitration. The Supreme Court, unlike the High Court and Court of Appeal, permitted the adjudication to continue and, in doing so, dismissed the suggestion that insolvency set-off always results in the extinction of cross-claims to be replaced by a single claim for the balance.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 (17 June 2020) has been eagerly anticipated.
The appeal raised important questions about the compatibility of adjudication with the operation of insolvency set-off. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deciding that a liquidator was entitled to refer an insolvent company’s claims to adjudication where there were cross-claims between the parties.
The facts
One of the big decisions to come out of 2020 was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v. Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 in which it was held an insolvent party can adjudicate a dispute.
However, the Supreme Court went on to say that an adjudicator’s decision obtained by an insolvent party may not be enforced because of the insolvency: that was something the Technology and Construction Court has to decide on a case by case basis in enforcement proceedings.
So what happened next?
In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling that an insolvent company can adjudicate, the TCC have confirmed that there remain high hurdles to the insolvent party enforcing any adjudication decision.
What have we been up to?
The days and nights may well be getting noticeably cooler, but as a team we remain very much at simmer point in terms of the demands of newlyacquired business support and insolvency work and staying on top of recent legislative changes.
Amongst this month's work highlights have been:
Following the recent Supreme Court decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, it is clear that companies in liquidation have the right to adjudicate a dispute. However, a successful adjudication is only half the battle: the insolvent company must still persuade the court to enforce the decision.
The case of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd (Bresco) saw the TCC and the Court of Appeal agree that insolvent referring parties should not reap the rewards of adjudication. In fact, the TCC said that a referring party facing an adjudication brought by an insolvent party could even get an injunction to restrain that referral.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unparalleled disruption to the judiciary, which has been presented with logistical hurdles as well as acute legal issues to tackle.
This article summarises some notable recent caselaw concerning the fallout from the pandemic. Broadly, the judiciary has adopted a strict but fair approach when parties have sought leniency due to the impact of COVID-19. Courts have not looked kindly on those who are seen to be unfairly capitalising on the disruption but, where merited, parties have been granted clemency.
In Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (in liquidation) –v- 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC 2651 (TCC), the Court found that in certain circumstances, it is possible for companies in liquidation to legitimately engage in adjudication proceedings.
Background
Historically, there has been some doubt as to whether or not an Adjudicator has jurisdiction to make a decision if the referring party was insolvent. This was due to the fundamental incompatibility between the adjudication process and the insolvency regime.