In accordance with the resolution adopted by the seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court dated 20 November 2019, case file no. III CZP 3/19, it is not admissible to stipulate liquidated damages in the case of rescinding an agreement due to the failure to perform an obligation of a pecuniary nature.
The Federal Court of Australia has recently exercised its powers to:
The High Court identifies the test for rescinding a director’s disqualification undertaking on the basis of fraud
A recently published decision from the Technology and Construction Court, which examined the widely debated issue of whether companies in liquidation can adjudicate, could have increasing significance over the coming months in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.
This note discusses two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal of Singapore that dealt with the standard of review to be applied in winding up proceedings where a debtor asserts that there is a dispute which parties agreed to resolve by way of arbitration.
Winding up proceedings
It is quite often that we see contracts providing for disputes arising under the contract to be resolved by way of arbitration.
Since online auctioneer Paddle 8 filed for bankruptcy protection in March, creditors of the company have begun filing their notices of claim in the bankruptcy case. One thing on which the creditors all seem to agree is that the current assets of Paddle 8 will be insufficient to cover its debts by a considerable margin. Paddle 8’s lenders and commercial landlord are by far the largest creditors, and standing out from the crowd will be difficult.
Further to our blog about measures announced by the Government to protect commercial tenants from “aggressive” rent collection strategies, the Government subsequently confirmed that the restrictions will apply (unless extended) from:
The High Court has dismissed applications to restrain the presentation of winding up petitions for reasons relating to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The English Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the Debenhams case, on which we acted. A copy of the judgment can be downloaded here. This upholds the decision of the High Court, which followed the earlier decision in Carluccio’s.