Any business owner will know the importance of consistent cash flow to the success of their business. On 1 October 2017, a new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims will come into force. The new Protocol will make the process of claiming debts from unwilling debtors slower and more onerous for creditors as a new mandatory process before a claim can be issued is required, with longer timescales. It also aims to avoid court proceedings wherever possible, firmly encouraging parties to engage in alternative forms of dispute resolution.

This case considers section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986, namely the rules on avoidance of certain floating charges, and provides analysis of the application of s245 notwithstanding the Liquidation originated in the British Virgin Islands.

This article was first published in The Gazette, and the original article can be found online here.

The implementation of the Insolvency Rules 2016 has introduced a number of changes to the procedures in insolvency regimes.

The facts

A former bankrupt had purported claims against a firm of solicitors arising pre-bankruptcy, which vested in his subsequently appointed trustee in bankruptcy. The debtor wrote to both the Official Receiver (OR) and, post appointment, the trustee in bankruptcy, offering to buy the claims. The trustee subsequently disclaimed the claims. The debtor alleged that the claims had already re-vested in him following his notice to both the trustee and the OR.

Key points

• The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
• A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
• In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.

The facts

Key Points

• Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
• Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge

The Facts

In Saw v Wilson, the Court of Appeal held that a second ranking floating charge would be valid and enforceable, even if at the time it was created there were no uncharged assets to which the floating charge could attach.

Facts of the case

Randhawa & Anor v Turpin & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1201

In a fascinating (and very readable) judgment, the Court of Appeal has held the appointment of joint administrators made under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to be invalid because, among other things, the appointment was made following an inquourate board meeting. Readers are encouraged to read the judgment, as the following is merely an overview of the facts and conclusions.

BACKGROUND

Introduction

This article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017 30(6) and is now available on Westlaw.