MVL's are dealt with in Part 5, chapters 1 and 2 of the new rules so, if you're sitting comfortably, I'll begin.

r.5.1 sets out the additional requirements to those in s.89 IA

An update on the changes to CVA's brought about by the introduction of the New Rules.

1. CONSOLIDATION OF THE RULES

1.1. The New Rules applicable to CVA's are found at rules 2.1 to 2.45 of the New Rules, (formerly found between 1.1 to 1.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR86")). There has been an element of consolidation of IR86 applicable to CVA's and relating to:

Expedited petitions

The Court of Appeal in Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc [2017] EWCA Civ 60 has confirmed that parties cannot re-litigate failed arguments that have previously been presented in bankruptcy proceedings.

This will be welcome news for creditors in situations where debtors rehearse the same arguments at several stages of the bankruptcy process in an attempt to deter enforcement by driving up legal costs and drawing out proceedings.

The facts

Schedule 5 of the new rules provides some clarifications on the calculation of time periods:

1. Days - CPR 2.8(1) applies meaning that a period of time expressed as a number of days means clear days, meaning you do not count the day on which the period begins, and the if the end of the period is defined by reference to an event, the day on which that event occurs.

The Court has recently announced it will be publishing some standard forms for insolvency procedures, to be published under the Insolvency Practice Direction.

The forms are expected to be available towards the end of March.

This is the current list of what will be published. There may be some amendments.

Forms being hosted by Court under Practice Direction (these were identified as forms to "keep" from Schedule 4)

Administration

The language of the rules has been amended and there is now more reference to delivery of documents rather than service. Rules 1.40 - 1.53 set out rules relating to delivery wherever documents are required to be delivered by the new rules.

These rules include the following headings:

This case arose from an underlying claim by a company called Mploy against Denso, which resulted in an adverse costs order against Mploy.

The Court of Appeal, in the case of Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc [2017] EWCA Civ 6, has held that it constitutes an abuse of process for a debtor to seek to set aside a second statutory demand on the basis of an argument previously raised and dismissed by the Court on its merits.

The background

In Fielding v The Burnden Group Limited (BGL) the English High Court dismissed an application for the liquidator to be held personally liable for the costs of a successful appeal against the rejection of a proof of debt.