Today, thanks to the high-cost of current court fees, small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face the problem of not getting paid by a customer and then, subsequently, not being able to go to court to get paid.

De Le Cuona v Big Apple Marketing Ltd, Chancery Division, 12 April 2017 

Easement to park; illusory; true construction of a deed

Background

This was an appeal by Dr Mohammed Abdulla (the “Appellant”), the husband of Mrs Sarah Amin (the “Bankrupt”), against the decision at first instance in favour of (1) Mr Andrew John Whelan (2) Mr Walter Terence Weir (3) Mr David Ansell and (4) the Bankrupt (together the “Respondents”). The pertinent facts are:

• Mr Whelan was the trustee in bankruptcy for Mrs Amin (the “Trustee”).

Summary: Political uncertainty, increasing inflation, threat of interest rate rises and insecurity of overseas investment. Should real estate lenders remind themselves of the enforcement available if things go awry? Much has changed since the 2008 financial crisis; much for the better. In this article we look at the main enforcement options and suggest some factors that could result in a new approach to restructuring and enforcing real estate loans.

Enforcement Options

Court refuses application for pre-action disclosure of insurance policy

The High Court has refused an application for pre-action disclosure of the public liability insurance policy of a company that, if litigation were pursued against it, was likely to become insolvent.

Background

The Supreme Court in London today gave judgment in the Waterfall I appeal, a dispute as to the distribution of the estimated £8 billion surplus of assets in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

LBIE entered administration on 15 September 2008 and has now paid its unsecured creditors dividends of 100p in the £. The Waterfall I Supreme Court appeal addressed some of the key issues as to who should receive the surplus, which we discuss below.

“So-called” Currency Conversion Claims

On 17 May 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in proceedings - commonly known as the Waterfall I litigation - to determine claims with regard to the estimated £8 billion surplus arising in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

The Supreme Court's decision in Lehman Waterfall I was handed down this morning. DLA Piper represents one of the successful appellants, Lehman Brothers Limited (in administration) (LBL).

The court was asked to consider certain issues relating to distributions in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), an unlimited company in administration. Such issues arose due to a substantial anticipated surplus in LBIE and sought to resolve particular lacunas in UK insolvency legislation.

Summary

A liquidator rejected creditors’ claims. The creditors successfully appealed that decision and sought the costs of that application from the liquidator personally under rule 4.83 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (as it then was) on the assertion that the reason the liquidator rejected the claims was that they exceeded the value of a potential misfeasance claim against the creditors and he did not want set off to defeat the misfeasance claim.

Creditors’ Case

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.