In a judgment useful to insolvency practitioners, a court has recently confirmed that liquidators are not personally liable for payment of dividends. In Lomax Leisure v Miller and Bramston [2007] EWHC 2508 (Ch) Miller and Bramston faced personal claims on dividend cheques they had cancelled, after receiving a pending application from a creditor whose claim they had rejected. Miller and Bramstom were later replaced by a new liquidator who brought claims in the name of the company and various creditors.

This recent interlocutory decision in The Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals (" the DGF") v Bank Frick & Co AG ("Bank Frick") & Anor deals another blow to the DGF in its recent attempts to pursue claims in England which allegedly arise following the 2014-15 banking crisis in Ukraine.

Background

This note discusses two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal of Singapore that dealt with the standard of review to be applied in winding up proceedings where a debtor asserts that there is a dispute which parties agreed to resolve by way of arbitration.

Winding up proceedings

It is quite often that we see contracts providing for disputes arising under the contract to be resolved by way of arbitration.

Back in August, we wrote a blog about adjudication and liquidation, following the judgment in the TCC case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) (Lonsdale).

In Lomas and others v HMRC [2016] EWHC 2492 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that statutory interest payable on insolvency is not 'yearly interest' for UK tax purposes. The administrators therefore had no obligation to account for income tax on the interest payments made. The Court was also critical of HMRC's contradictory guidance on this issue.

Background

In April 2013, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) came into force, making the success fee applied to a Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA), and the After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums, irrecoverable by a successful party to litigation proceedings.  However, under article 4 of LAPSO, there is an "insolvency exemption" making these costs recoverable by an insolvency practitioner.

The UK Supreme Court judgment in the conjoined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in Liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, which provides vital clarification on the effect of foreign insolvency judgments on the UK courts.

Background & Court of Appeal

In Griffi n v UHY Hacker Young & Partners1 the court dismissed an application for summary judgment on the basis of the ex turpi causa (or illegality) defence, and made a number of observations as to uncertainties in the law as it stands.

The Accountancy Investigation & Disciplinary Board (AIDB) has launched an investigation into the conduct of certain members of professional accountancy bodies who were involved in the events leading to the collapse of European Home Retail plc and Farepak Food & Gifts Ltd which left 150,000 customers short of £40m in hamper savings.

In Pharmagona Limited v Taheri,(1) the High Court refused to seal and issue a contempt application as the breach, if it had occurred, was only technical, and it was therefore inappropriate for the application to succeed.

Facts