The First-tier Tribunal has issued its decision in the case ofM Gilbert (t/a United Foods) v HMRC, one of the first cases concerning a claim for entrepreneurs' relief to reach the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal was asked to decide whether a taxpayer had disposed of part of his business or, as HMRC argued, simply sold some of the assets used to carry on the business.

A common fact in any transaction, is the effect of human relations, daily life and commercial realities. The legal do's and don'ts are often overtaken by practicalities. An example is a need for a tenant to enter into occupation of premises.

The recent case of Mann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd (in Administration) v Longmint Aviation Limited Ltd dealt with the rights of an occupier going into possession of premises and paying rent, but without any form of written lease or licence.

Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky SA & Others

[2011] UKSC 50

We covered this case back in Issue 120. The case has now reached the Supreme Court where the decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned. In doing so, Lord Clarke adopted the interpretation of the bond which was most consistent with business common sense.

Summary and implications

This note provides a short summary of receivership and covers some of the most frequently asked questions. The note is intended to be a general overview and specific advice should be taken in individual cases.

The appointment of a receiver is one of the formal enforcement options typically available to lenders who have security over property assets situated in England and Wales. The receiver’s job is to realise those assets and use the proceeds to discharge the debt due to the charge-holder.

Limited liability is not complete protection for directors and they must carefully consider their actions and, indeed, failures to act in order to avoid “piercing the corporate veil”.  Directors may be ordered to contribute to the assets of the company even where they have not acted dishonestly.

TiBs frequently assign the right to recover debts due to the bankrupt’s estate. The advantage to the TiB is that he receives a lump sum or a share of the proceeds of a successful claim for the benefit of the bankrupt’s creditors without having to fund and pursue litigation himself. In most cases, once a TiB has assigned the right to recover the debt that will be the end of the matter; he just has to wait for the litigation to be concluded when payment of the agreed share will be made. A recent Court of Appeal decision means that this will not always be the case.

Earlier this year, the High Court gave judgment in a case involving a bankrupt who owned property in Morocco (Saunders v Donovan, unreported). The bankrupt had also granted someone a power of attorney in respect of the Moroccan property. The question that fell to be decided by the High Court was four-fold:

In Re Ruiz (a bankrupt) [2011] EWHC 913 (Fam) the High Court ruled that a wife’s right to occupy the matrimonial home did not prevent her husband’s trustee in bankruptcy (TiB) gaining and enforcing a proprietary interest in the property.

The Facts

M and G married in 2001 and moved into a house purchased by M and registered in his sole name. In 2006 divorce proceedings were initiated, following which G obtained a freezing order over M’s assets and an occupation order over the marital home.  

BIS and Treasury have published their response to the consumer credit elements of the Government review of consumer credit and personal insolvency. The response explains the initiative that will ensure that over 85% of customers with personal current accounts will see clearer, fairer and more manageable charges for unarranged overdrafts. Customers will be able to get alerts when their balance is low and will not incur a fee if they exceed their limit by a small amount. Also, from late 2013 there will be guaranteed account switching within seven days.

This appeal was brought by the insolvency practitioners dealing with the Nortel and Lehman Brothers companies. The Regulator’s Determinations Panel has, in relation to both the Nortel and Lehman Brothers pension schemes, issued warning notices of its intention to issue Financial Support Directions (FSDs) against group companies.