Last year we reported on a decision of the Scottish Court of Session which suggested that greater leniency may apply to the interpretation of performance bonds in Scotland than in England (see our earlier Law-Now here). A further decision from the Court of Session issued last month would appear to support this trend.

Fife Council v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc

The amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 will extend the protection of essential supplies on insolvency to most private utility suppliers. They will also extend protection to I.T. supplies, including data storage and processing and website hosting. Further protection is introduced where contracts are entered into from 1 October 2015, so that insolvency related terms which allow higher supply charges in the event of administration or company voluntary arrangement will be prohibited.

Why is the law changing?

The Court of Appeal gave judgment today (15 November 2013) in favour of licensed insolvency practitioner Andrew Hosking (D), unanimously upholding a strike out judgment of Peter Smith J made on 22 February 2013. 

Stephen Hunt, liquidator of Ovenden Colbert Printers Limited (“OCP”), had sued D and 8 other defendants.  His claim against D was brought pursuant to sections 238 and 241 Insolvency Act 1986.  He alleged that D had received or benefited from payments made by OCP which constituted transactions at an undervalue. 

The Court of Appeal has held in the recent case of Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and another (2011) that a dismissal can be for “a reason connected with the transfer” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) even if there is no particular transfer or transferee in existence or contemplation at the time of the dismissal. In the case Mr Baillavoine, the Chief Executive of Ultralon Holdings Ltd (“Ultralon”), was dismissed on the day Ultralon was placed into administration.

The High Court has set out the principles that apply to the construction of questions in an insurer’s automated online underwriting system and the circumstances in which an insurer’s questions may lead to waiver of the right to be told about certain information. In this case, the Court considered the construction and scope of the insurer’s standard question concerning previous insolvencies, and held that the wording used waived the insurer’s right to be told about other insolvency events not caught by the question.

Background

Businesses continue to face a challenging environment owing to the global COVID-19 crisis and consequent measures introduced by governments worldwide. The scope and nature of these measures is constantly evolving, with the focus now shifting to an easing of restrictions and facilitating a bounce back of the economy. As part of their response to such measures, businesses will be continuing to look at how best to deal with potential contractual disputes, or considering if some contracts can be terminated.

Last September we reported on the Court’s decision on the landlords’ challenge to the Debenhams CVA on grounds of unfair prejudice and material irregularity, in respect of which the landlords have now successfully obtained permission to appeal on various grounds (see below).

A recent TCC decision highlights the dangers of withholding payment against contractors with a view to pushing them into insolvency. The court allowed the recovery of insolvency professional fees as well as a substantial sum reflecting a reduced settlement reached with a third party on a separate project. The court’s decision has ramifications for any party seeking to withhold large payments under a construction contract against a party who is likely to suffer serious cash-flow pressure as a result.

Administrators can be validly appointed to a company by the holder of a floating charge which was given by the company in breach of a negative pledge in favour of an existing secured creditor and even if, both at the time of the purported creation of that floating charge and on the day of the purported appointment of administrators, the company had no assets which were the subject of the floating charge.

As we reported in April, the Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers facing insolvency. The Government has been seeking views on how well the requirements work both before an insolvency practitioner has been appointed to the failing company and after a formal appointment has been made.