The High Court (David Donaldson QC) has held in Enta Technologies Limited v HMRC [2014] EWHC 548 (Ch), that where a winding-up petition was brought by HMRC based on the non-payment of tax raised in assessments and the taxpayer's appeal against those assessments was pending, the winding-up court should refuse to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal and should leave that question to be dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ('FTT').

Background

Key point

A winding up petition founded on a tax assessment, which is the subject of an appeal to the Tax Tribunal, should be dismissed or stayed pending the appeal.

The facts

Key points

• In order to rescind a winding up order the court must be satisfied that the circumstances of the case are materially different to those before the court that made the winding up order.
• A stay of a winding up order would not be made as an alternative route was available. 

Facts

Key points

• Section 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“1986 Act”) provides that a bankrupt’s estate shall vest immediately in the trustee in bankruptcy and no registration is required to effect that vesting;
• A bankrupt’s tenancy had vested in the trustee so that the bankrupt was no longer the qualifying tenant for the purposes of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“1967 Act”).

The facts

From 6 April 2014 Industrial and Provident Societies (IPSs) will be able to enter administration or make a voluntary arrangement with creditors. Formerly winding up was the only option for an insolvent IPS. 

This is a significant development as it extends the corporate rescue culture to these societies, which would otherwise face closure in times of financial distress. 

What is an Industrial and Provident Society? 

On 24 February 2014 the Court of Appeal delivered its long awaited judgment in the GAME Group litigation (Pillar Denton Limited & Ors -v- Jervis & Ors). 

This is an extremely important decision and will affect every trading administration where the company is a tenant. 

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA & others v Akers & another [2014] serves to emphasise that third party reports commissioned by liquidators to enable them to consider whether litigation should be commenced in order to make recoveries for the benefit of creditors will not always attract litigation privilege.

In its decision on the Game Station¹ appeal, the Court of Appeal has overturned the cases of Goldacre²  and  Luminar³ holding that office holders of insolvent companies must pay rent of property occupied for the  benefit of creditors on a “pay as you go” basis irrespective of when rent falls due under the lease. 

The facts

The English Court of Appeal decision in Caterpillar v John Holt & Company, and its analysis of “retention of title” and “no set-off” clauses, will be of interest to commodity traders, compliance officers and legal counsel in industries dealing with energy and natural resources internationally.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the trustees of two occupational defined benefit (DB) schemes can use a particular mechanism, known as a Headway agreement, to maximise the amount of s.75 debt payable by the employers.

In the case of Sarjeant and others v Rigid Group Ltd, both schemes commenced winding up in 2000. No insolvency event had occurred before the winding up in either case. The applicable legislation at the relevant time required the s.75 debt to be calculated on the MFR basis.