The recent case of Farnborough Airport Properties Company and another v HMRC is noteworthy for the light it shines on the dimly lit and often difficult interaction between tax law and insolvency.

The issues

In September 2017, the UK construction industry contracted for the first time in over a year. With Brexit delaying some investment plans, there is also a degree of uncertainty in the industry, and, of course, the risk that some construction companies may be forced into insolvency. This blog post considers some practical implications from an insurance angle.

Protection

The High Court gives an insolvency exclusion a wide scope and declines to apply narrow interpretation rules for exclusions in insurance contracts in Crowden and another -v- QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm).

On 25 October 2017, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) published its insolvency statistics for the latest quarter, July to September 2017.

In this case, the claimant brought proceedings against the first defendant claiming damages for breach of a settlement agreement, and an order under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for the setting aside of the sale of a vessel. It was alleged that the sale of the vessel was a sham designed to put the first defendant’s assets out of the reach of the claimant. The latter claim was also brought against two other defendants, being the purchaser and sub-purchaser of the vessel.

Key points

• Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

• Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

• Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Key point

• In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.

The facts

This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:

In Global Corporate Limited v Dirk Stefan Hale [2017] EWHC 2277 (Ch), the Applicant, the assignee of the claim in question, failed in its application seeking relief against the former director and shareholder of a company in liquidation, Mr Hale (DSH). The decision is a salutary lesson in the importance of a properly drafted Deed of Assignment, the need to properly consider the commercial benefits of such an assignment and the risks of pursuing an unlawful dividend claim.

The Facts

In between the presentation of a winding up petition and making of a winding up order, a company entered into a settlement agreement with the Respondent, who founded the company and was previously a shareholder and director of the company.

The Decision

There are various ways misconduct can be reported in respect of companies and individuals. Establishing which authority has the power to conduct investigations of wrongdoing depends to a certain extent on the status of the companies and individuals.