This interview was conducted by Lucy Trevelyan at LexisNexis. The views expressed by the interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Property Analysis: A recent Court of Appeal decision on the payment of service charges, while correct in principal, was wrong on the facts, according to Peter Petts, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.
Original News
Skelton and others v DBS Homes (Kings Hill) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1139, All ER (D) 196 (Jul)
On 1 October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (Protocol) will come into force. It will apply to all debt claims where:
- the creditor is a business (including sole traders and public bodies)
- the debtor is an individual (including sole traders), and
- no other specialised Protocol applies.
Why is this new Protocol being introduced?
The express purpose of the new Protocol is to:
The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims comes into force on 1 October 2017. This note deals with the key elements to be aware of.
Applicability
While the Protocol is named the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims the first thing to note is that it only applies to businesses claiming payment of debts from an individual (including individual sole traders) and does not apply to business-to-business debts.
The English Court of Appeal has recently decided that a corporation that held shares in a company remained a shareholder notwithstanding the shareholding company's dissolution.
BWE Estates Limited had two shareholders: an individual named David who held 75% of its shares and a company, Belvedere Limited, which held the remaining 25%. Although Belvedere was dissolved in 1996, it remained listed as a shareholder in BWE's share register.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd and another v Wilson and others (as joint administrators of Property Edge Lettings Ltd) is the first case to address the effect of automatic crystallisation of an earlier floating charge upon a later floating charge.
In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.
In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.
The Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) has released its Annual Report and Accounts for the year 2016-17. The report contains a wealth of data, including a collation of the AiB's quarterly insolvency statistics.
Corporate insolvency
This article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017 30(6) and is now available on Westlaw.