Pre-2006, it was always clear that TUPE applied to transfer employees working in a business when it was bought out of administration. However, changes in 2006 provided that the automatic transfer principle would not apply to any transfer of a business or undertaking where the transferor was the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, which had been 'instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor'.

The defendant guaranteed payment of the price of equipment sold by the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary. The claimant then entered into agreements with the subsidiary and various finance companies under which title in certain of the goods passed to the finance companies in return for payment of part of the relevant purchase price. The subsidiary paid some of the purchase price of the goods, as did the finance companies but the balance remained unpaid when the subsidiary went into liquidation. The claimant claimed on the guarantee and issued proceedings.

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act^[1] (the Act) came into force.

The Act has significant implications for supply contracts as it will prevent many suppliers ending existing contracts once a business is insolvent. The Act will make a big impact on existing supply contracts, and will also affect the drafting and negotiation of new contracts.

This ThinkHouse TUPE Club Q&A deals with our Top 10 questions on:

• the key employment issues in Administrations and Liquidations; and
• how TUPE applies when there is an insolvency situation.

Q1. What is the effect of insolvency on contracts of employment?

There are various types of insolvency proceedings and these are designed to achieve various different end results. The different types of insolvency also have different consequences for the entity and employees.

Administration

In our update this month we take a look at three cases that provide helpful clarification from the courts on issues that will be of interest to the insolvency and fraud industry - the key message from each case confirms:

Defendant's threat of insolvency did not prevent adjudicator's decision being enforced.

This month we review the court's view on open ended suspension of discharge from bankruptcy and the difficulty of 'substituting' a defendant in proceedings where the relevant limitation period has expired:

Suspension of discharge from bankruptcy should not be open ended

The High Court has held that only in the most serious cases of non-co-operation should a discharge from bankruptcy be suspended otherwise than on a specified period or condition basis.

Notice of assignment

Notice of assignment can be given by either the assignee or assignor under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

This was the High Court's finding in Smith v 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd and another. Smith was notified by her credit card company that her credit card debt had been assigned to 1st Credit. 1st Credit wrote to Smith shortly afterwards confirming the assignment and advising how payment could be made. Smith failed to pay and was made bankrupt by 1st Credit which subsequently repossessed and sold Smith's property.

When a company goes into administration, time does not stop running against its creditors' claims for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. This is different to where a company goes into liquidation as time does then stop running. The effect there is that the claim stays live whereas in an administration, once the limitation period has expired, the claim is time-barred.

Independent Trustee Services Ltd (the trustee) was the sole trustee of the Ilford Pension Scheme (the Scheme), which was underfunded when the sponsoring employer went into administration in 2004. There was a proposal that the trustee should buy out certain benefits for members of the Scheme, for whom no Pension Protection Fund (PPF) compensation would be available, before the Scheme entered an assessment period.

Repossession of a bankrupt's property will be ordered unless there are exceptional circumstances making such an order inappropriate.

In Brittain v Haghighat, the only asset in the bankrupt's estate was the family home. One of the bankrupt's children was severely disabled with quadriplegic cerebral palsy, requiring continuous care. The trustee applied for an order for possession under s336 and s337 Insolvency Act 1986.