Boris Becker was originally made bankrupt in June 2017. In the ordinary course, a debtor is made bankrupt for a period of one year, and upon the anniversary of the bankruptcy order they are automatically discharged. While a bankrupt is undischarged, they are subject to various restrictions e.g. they are unable to act as company director or be involved in the management, promotion or formation of a business. Once discharged, the debtor can (in theory) start to rebuild their life afresh while their pre-bankruptcy assets remain in the hands of their trustee in bankruptcy (the Trustee).

The High court has recently considered whether permission should be given retrospectively to lift an administration moratorium to allow a counterclaim to proceed.

Background

The counterclaim had been brought by WWTAI against CargoLogicAir Ltd (in administration) (CLA) without the consent of the administrators or the Court. CLA contended that the counterclaim was issued in breach of the statutory administration moratorium and should be struck out.

Solely to set off

Introduction

When parties agree to submit disputes to arbitration there is often language defining the issues that can be determined by arbitration, such as ‘any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination’ (LCIA recommended clause). Once a dispute has arisen the exact scope of the issues before the arbitral tribunal will likely be detailed in the terms of reference or other procedural document.

When individuals and certain entities (such as partnerships, trusts and other unincorporated bodies) have debts that they are unable to repay to their creditors, they may consider or be faced with bankruptcy, which is known as sequestration in Scotland. However, sequestration is just one avenue. Alternative statutory debt solutions are available, which can provide breathing space and allow debts to be repaid over time, without creditor pressure.

Purkiss v Kennedy & Ors [2024] EWHC 1081 (Ch) is another judgment in a string of cases arising out of schemes designed to enable self-employed individuals to avoid paying income tax and national insurance on their remuneration. The decision of the Supreme Court in RFC 2012 Plc v AG for Scotland demonstrated the flaws that often mean such schemes fail.

Since the pandemic, during which insolvency rates were low due to Government measures, there has been a considerable rise in insolvencies in the UK and many other jurisdictions. High interest rates have significantly increased the cost of borrowing and many companies are saddled with mountains of debt that was taken out in better times and which are now difficult to repay. In addition, high inflation and energy costs, lower consumer confidence and volatile supply chains have all contributed to making the last few years very difficult for businesses.

Case: Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly (as additional liquidator of CGL Realisations Limited) [2023] EWCA Civ 1135

Banned! Fraudsters!– Terms used by the Insolvency Service for directors who abused the government backed loan scheme which was put in place to help businesses struggling during the pandemic.

Phoenix Tech Ltd had carried on business to defraud HMRC by participating in a kind of VAT fraud sometimes called “missing trader intra-community” fraud or “carousel” fraud. It had submitted a VAT return claiming the right to deduct VAT and a repayment in respect of various transactions in the sum of £4.5 million. HMRC denied the input tax claim in relation to the transactions and issued a misdeclaration penalty for £607,387. The company appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

In Re a Company [2024] EWHC 1070 (Ch) was an application to restrain presentation of a petition on five grounds:

(1) that the judgment debt was time-barred; (2) that it was unclear if there had been an acknowledgment of the debt within the limitation period; (3) that there was a substantial dispute as to whether the judgment debt had been satisfied; (4) that the company was solvent; and (5) whether it was appropriate to grant an injunction.