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.
Capital Funding One Limited (the "Company") arranged short term bridging finance for borrowers who were unable to obtain loans from more conventional sources. The funding for these loans were obtained from King Street Bridging Limited ("King Street").
Statutory demands are a key asset in a lender’s arsenal when seeking to enforce under a guarantee. The mere threat of bankruptcy is often a powerful method of brining a reticent debtor to the table. Above all else, they are quick, simply and relatively inexpensive to present, often avoiding the need to bring proceedings against the debtor in court.
On Monday 29th January 2018, following a private prosecution, Andrew John Camilleri was unanimously convicted by a jury at Manchester Crown Court of making false representations in an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (“IVA”)[1] proposal contrary to section 262A of the Insolvency Act 1986. The prosecution was brought by one of Camilleri’s many creditors.
While overall insolvencies fell in number in 2017 compared with 2016, the last quarter of 2017 showed an increase compared with the previous quarters which had been stable.
In those insolvencies, the vast majority are voluntary liquidations, but there is a trend of retail businesses which are struggling turning to the Company Voluntary Arrangement restructuring option, often accompanied by a managed reduction in operations.
What happens if a debtor is made bankrupt after a creditor has issued debt recovery proceedings?
A bankruptcy debt is any debt that the bankrupt owed to the relevant creditor at the date of the bankruptcy order, or a debt which arises under an obligation incurred by the debtor before the bankruptcy order, but one which falls due after the date of the bankruptcy order (known as contingent debts).
The recent judgment in Phones 4U Ltd (in administration) v EE Ltd [2018] EWHC 49 (Comm) has highlighted the need for care when communicating the reasons for terminating a contract. In this case EE, as a result of failing to identify a repudiatory breach as the grounds for terminating its trading agreement with Phone 4U, was precluded from later pursuing a common law claim for damages.
Background
The expression “dilapidations” refers to any breach of lease covenants which relate to the condition of a leased property. This can apply to, among other things, a tenant’s covenants to repair the premises, to decorate or to remove alterations.
The process for ensuring that dilapidations are remedied usually takes place at the end of a lease, and any such dilapidations are commonly labelled “terminal” or “lease end” dilapidations. The procedure for determining liability can be complex and can potentially end up in Court.