Stevensdrake Ltd v Stephen Hunt & Others [2015] EWHC 1527 (Ch)

Introduction

The High Court’s recent judgment in Stevensdrake Ltd -v- Stephen Hunt & Others highlights the need for Insolvency Practitioners to make sure that they carefully review conditional fee arrangements before entering into them and understand the potential contractual ramifications which may give rise to personal liability.

Background

Key point

The Joint special administrators of an investment banking entity succeed in obtaining a direction to allow them to distribute client assets quickly.

Facts

Key point

A statutory demand designed to achieve some connected or collateral purpose is not necessarily invalid.

The facts

Key points

The court has discretion to allow an insolvency practitioner to recover fees and costs from work done in realising assets for the benefit of a third party but it cannot be exercised where an insolvency practitioner takes action in relation to assets outside in the insolvency estate of his own accord.

The facts

Two major Slovakian construction companies, both heavily dependent on large state contracts, have recently been restructured. Both of these cases have proven that Slovakian entrepreneurs, even those who live off of public money, perceive and utilise the current regulation of the restructuring procedure as a “legally safe way” to restart their businesses and get rid of a large portion of creditors. This option is viable also in a moment, when the only solution clearly is a bankruptcy petition.

In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others has provided office holders with greater (but not final) clarity on the operation of the ‘illegality defence’.

Many readers will be familiar with the concept of the illegality defence, otherwise referred to by the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”.  It is a rule of law which provides that a claimant cannot rely on its own wrongdoing to found a claim against another party. 

RE: HARVEST FINANCE LTD; JACKSON & ANOTHER V CANNONS LAW PRACTICE LLP & OTHERS [2014]

This case concerns the provision of documentation under s236 IA 1986. The documentation requested by the liquidators was extensive and the Respondents wished to claim their time costs (£40,381) of providing the same.  The Court held that whilst it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the insolvent estate, it was not minded to do so in this case.

The Facts

A speechby Sam Woods of the Bank of England (BoE) says a lot about its approach to Solvency II and leaves a lot more unsaid.

Woods said that he wanted to dispel two myths:

In Re DTEK Finance BV,¹ the English High Court decided that a change in the governing law of bonds from New York to English law, established a sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction for it to sanction the bonds' restructuring via a UK scheme of arrangement.

Background