The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned an unlawful preference ruling from the High Court, finding instead that the repayment of inter-company debt did not amount to a preference because, at the time the operative decision to make the repayment occurred, there was no desire to prefer.

Beware of Demand Letters

An immediate concern for any company is a threat to present a winding up petition made in an email or letter – regardless of the size of debt, whether the debt is disputed or the company has a counterclaim.

The consequences of ignoring such a threat can have an immediate and adverse impact on a business. Failure to respond can be used as evidence that the company is unable to pay and that can be used as evidence to support presentation of a winding up petition.

In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background to the Case

Background

The claimant, Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Limited, sought judgment for £3,316,487.55 to enforce an adjudicator's decision in its favour against Carmarthenshire County Council.

This judgment reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to draw down their pension for the benefit of the creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

Summary

The recent judgment handed down by the High Court in Manolete v White [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down on their pension for the benefit of creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

The Facts

In the recent case of Brake & Anor v Chedington Court Estate Limited [2023] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court has clarified the categories of persons who have standing to make a challenge to the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Supreme Court confirmed that its decision will also apply to creditors and others seeking to challenge the actions of a liquidator under s168(5) of the Act. The decision will be welcomed by practitioners.

After the tumult of the past few years, with emergency legislation being introduced to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the last few months have felt relatively quiet in terms of new legislation. That said, there have been a number of important government publications in relation to the insolvency industry, and it appears that change is on the horizon.

Summary

Trustees in bankruptcy can often come up against challenges in dealing with obstructive bankrupts. A bankrupt might ignore communications and requests for interview, fail to disclose information about their assets, or provide partial cooperation which fails to offer any substantive assistance.

The High Court examinership of Mac Interiors Limited has given rise to a second important judgment (see our update dated 14 July 2023 in relation to the first such judgment here).

Summary

In this High Court case ICC Judge Barber ordered a disqualified director to compensate creditors for losses under s15A of the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA) as a result of negligent conduct in trading a company illegally.

Facts