Case alert - [2017] EWHC 3004 (Ch)

Court holds insurers are not entitled to a lien for unpaid premium due from insolvent insured

An insolvent company obtained damages in a professional negligence claim against its solicitors. That claim had been pursued with the benefit of various insurance arrangements (including ATE insurance). The insurers sought recovery of unpaid premium but the bankruptcy trustee of the company argued that they were only unsecured creditors in respect of the proceeds.

When creditors are demanding payment and money is tight the easiest thing to do is pay those who are shouting the loudest. Often HMRC debts, including Winding Up Petitions, are ignored in favour of paying suppliers so that a business can keep going. However, ignoring HMRC can lead to unavoidable failure of a company.

The English Court of Appeal has recently outlined the methodology for calculating interest when a surplus remains following full payment of debts by a company in administration.

The English High Court in Bank and Clients Plc v King and Brown considered guarantor liability in circumstances where the guarantors, Messrs King and Brown, alleged representations had been made by the Bank that would relieve them of their liability.

An insolvent company obtained damages in a professional negligence claim against its solicitors. That claim had been pursued with the benefit of various insurance arrangements (including ATE insurance). The insurers sought recovery of unpaid premium but the bankruptcy trustee of the company argued that they were only unsecured creditors in respect of the proceeds.

The Court of Appeal raises the bar for insolvent claimants on security for costs

Daniel Maurice Wagner -v- Benjamin Vincent St John White [2016] WL 10574979

Tech entrepreneur Ben White has successfully defended Dan Wagner's application to set aside a Statutory Demand in relation to Mr White's £2m investment in Powa Technologies PLC ("Powa"). Ashfords advised Ben White, with Joe Curl acting as counsel.

The Facts

The Facts

Norton Aluminium Ltd (NAL) went into Administration following a partially successful nuisance claim against it and subsequently went into Liquidation. Mr Dickinson was the managing director and controlling shareholder and brought a claim to recover a secured loan made by him to NAL. The Liquidators counterclaimed to set aside or recover compensation for various transactions, including a share buyback from Mr Dickinson and connected parties by NAL for £2.5 million and the sale of a subsidiary to Mr Dickinson for £1.

The High Court considered whether it would be appropriate to approve a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Luxembourg where the company's COMI had been moved to England and there had been a change in the governing law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.

It has been held that full and frank disclosure was not provided to the Court by a Russian Liquidator in granting a Recognition Order in the UK, which resulted in the Recognition Order being set aside. The issue was determined despite the parties being in agreement that the Liquidator's claims should be withdrawn.