In the recent case of Reynard v Fox, the High Court struck out a claim brought by a litigant in person and cited the recent Supreme Court decision in Barton v Wright Hassall.
The court rejected the claimant's submission that this would be unjust because as a litigant in person, he did not have a detailed knowledge of the insolvency regulations. It ruled that the relevant regulations were not hard to find, difficult to understand or ambiguous.
Background
The insolvency of Carillion has placed into sharp relief the difficulties faced by those both up and down the contractual chain for a construction project when one part of that chain becomes insolvent and the ultimate supplier of goods and materials on site has not been paid.
There was a magical place that’s now in administration. It’s called ‘Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’.
Key points
Care should be taken to ensure that finance documents clearly and specifically set out the intention of the parties.
Lenders should ensure that charges created in security documents are not invalidated or altered by provisions of other finance documents.
Facts
In January 2018 the English High Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) to extend a temporary stay on the commencement of enforcement action in respect of English law debt obligations owed by a foreign debtor so that in effect the stay became permanent, or whether such a permanent stay would breach the long established rule in Gibbs[1](whic
Carillion was perhaps best known for its public sector work. However, the insolvency of the UK’s second-largest construction company will inevitably have significant implications for the private sector.
Judgment was recently handed down in the Court of Appeal case of No 1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 250. It is the first reported decision on the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 in the residential context, but it has implications as much for commercial landlords and tenants, as for residential. The case examined important issues which arose from a long lessee of a flat applying to its landlord for consent to assign.
Over recent years I have been astounded that certain professionals, including accountants, insolvency practitioners (IPs) and solicitors, appear unable to recognise a conflict of interest if it were to stand up and slap them in the face.
Cynically, one could suggest that the blinkers have been on because it serves the interests of the professional concerned. Ignoring a conflict of interest is a fundamental breach of professional ethics, not something that can be brushed under the table for pure personal financial gain.
The Court of Appeal has released an important decision for landlords and tenants concerning applications for consent to assign a lease, overturning the High Court's earlier decision in No.1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd.
The Court of Appeal decided that one bad reason for a landlord refusing its consent will not render the entire decision to withhold consent unreasonable, so long as there are other reasons for the refusal which are good and free-standing.