The last few decades have seen a steady increase in ‘non-party costs orders’. These are court orders against non-participating people or entities requiring them to pay (either fully or partially) the costs of litigation in which they are not formally involved as parties. This year has proven to be one of flux for such liabilities.
Background
The Second Claimant (“Mr Hunt”) was appointed liquidator of the First Claimant (“BHUK”) on 11 December 2012. The action against the Defendant was commenced on 15 October 2013. By this time BHUK had already completed the process of administration and liquidation and the only material asset in the liquidation was the claim against the Defendant.
On 4 December 2019, the UK Supreme Court issued its decision in MacDonald and another as joint liquidators of Grampian MacLennan's Distribution Services Ltd v. Carnbroe Estates Ltd [2019] UKSC 57, a Scottish case involving insolvency and "gratuitous alienations" (sales at undervalue).
The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (“UKJT”) is one of six taskforces that make up the LawTech Delivery Panel established by the UK government, the judiciary and the Law Society of England and Wales as a collaborative discussion forum to promote the use of technology in the UK’s legal sector.
In May 2019 the UKJT issued a public consultation seeking to identify the principle issues over which there is perceived to be confusion regarding the status of cryptoassets and smart contracts under the law of England and Wales.
Background
High-profile use of company voluntary arrangements or CVAs, has led to widespread media coverage and controversies. Household names such as Jamie's Italian, Prezzo, Toys R Us, Mothercare, Gourmet Burger Kitchen and more recently Debenhams are amongst the growing list of companies who have followed this well-trodden path, with varying degrees of success. Those companies unable to turn their fortunes around face administration or liquidation.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.
Back in the late 1990’s the ubiquitous Katie Price t/a Jordan was at the height of her fame, gracing the pages of our tabloids, gentlemen’s publications such as Loaded and FHM and perhaps the odd bedroom wall of a rather poor Law student. It was reported at the time she had a net worth of around £45million.
In December 2018 with her finances now somewhat diminished, Katie entered into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (“IVA”) with her creditors. In November this year she was made bankrupt for failing to comply with the same.
A recent TCC decision has provided further guidance on a liquidator’s options when seeking payments owed to insolvent companies through adjudication and the interplay with the Insolvency Rules. The decision establishes an exception to the general principle that such adjudication proceedings will not be enforced (and are liable to be injuncted) where the responding party has a cross-claim.
Discovery (Northampton) Ltd & others v Debenhams Retail Ltd & others [2019] EWHC 2441(Ch)
Company Voluntary Arrangements (“CVAs”) are seen as most unfair by landlords who are often forced to continue to make a supply of premises at an imposed reduced rent.