Commercial Litigation

When can you be deprived of costs where you better your Part 36 offer?

OTL was placed into compulsory liquidation. Prior to this it transferred monies to a trust located in HK of which N was perceived to be the principal trustee. The OR as liquidator applied for an order under s 236(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that N produce a witness statement with supporting documents in relation to the company’s affairs. The primary question for HHJ Hodge QC was whether s 236(3) of the IA 1986 could have extra-territorial effect as N was resident in HK.

Held

A rare High Court decision on an unopposed lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 has underlined the importance of robust and thorough expert evidence – and the dangers of getting this wrong.

Landlords typically have a number of obligations to fulfil, such as maintaining, repairing and providing insurance for the property the tenants inhabit. If the landlord is a company at risk of insolvency, however, or an individual nearing bankruptcy, then it is not safe for leaseholders to assume that these obligations will be met or that the freehold interest will necessarily pass to them. Leaseholders need to be aware of what they must do in such a situation in order to acquire the freehold interest from the landlord.

Due to the introduction of new tax legislation on 6th April 2016, distributions made to shareholders of companies undergoing Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (MVL) are now treated as income (rather than capital) and are taxed accordingly.

Recent developments in landlord and tenant law concerning the position of the outgoing tenant’s guarantor on the assignment of the lease can only be described as ‘bonkers’. A few years ago, the Good Harvest and House of Fraser cases confirmed that a parent company could not guarantee both of its subsidiaries on an intra-group assignment. Last month, in the EMI case, the High Court has confirmed that the assignment of a lease to the tenant’s guarantor is similarly void.

Happy anniversary

Following on from our recent blog post on Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch), in which Mr Justice Snowdon discussed the issues around wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the quantum of liability that may be placed on directors who continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent, the Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued new guidance on the going concern basis of accounting and reporting on solvency and liquidity risks.

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a limitation order (providing for the restoration to the register of a dissolved company, C,  and the suspension of the limitation period during dissolution) and provided guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when making such an order.

Shortly before being placed into administration C entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement.  C later went into liquidation; however, the purchase price in respect of the sale was not received before the company was dissolved, over four years later.

KEY POINTS

The High Court has found two former directors of the BHS group of companies liable for wrongful trading and misfeasance under the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act). Relief against the directors has been ordered in the amount of £18m, with further rulings still to come.