Facts

A Trustee in Bankruptcy (‘TiB’) applied for committal of a bankrupt (‘B’) for contempt for repeated failure to provide financial information sought in conjunction with an application for an Income Payment Order (‘IPO’).

Facts

Mr Mikki is a photographer (‘the Bankrupt’). Bankruptcy was 2010 when pertinently he had a bank account with £1,500 in it and a car.

The £1,500 was spent, but £3,000 was subsequently paid in. When the account was frozen it again had £1,500 in it. After investigations it was determined that this money derived from post-bankruptcy income and was returned. Those investigations took some time and the Bankrupt demanded penal interest.

The rules relating to income payment orders ("IPO") and income payment agreements ("IPA") are largely unchanged. The time periods dictated in the old rules for IPOs and IPAs remain the same, however there are some added requirements in the new rules, particularly in relation to the contents of notices and orders.

Rule 10.109 Application for income payments order (section 310)

[…]

(4) the notice to the bankrupt must be authenticated and dated by the trustee.

Rule 10.110 Order for income payments order

Whether third party claimant entitled to pre-action disclosure of currently solvent insured's insurance policy

Following obiter comments in the recent Court of Appeal decision in JCAM Commercial Real Estate XV Limited v David Haulage Limited[1]practitioners must now review their stance on the use of a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators (“NoI”) where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”). This is a blow to the flexibility of the administration process as a rescue procedure.

This case raised what is an often-discussed issue amongst insolvency practitioners and lawyers but one which, until now, has not been addressed fully by the courts, namely "does a company (or its director(s)) have to have a "settled intention" to appoint an administrator in order to file a Notice of Intention ("NOI") pursuant to paragraph 27 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Schedule B1")?".

This article was first published in the LexisNexis Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal (2017) 2 CRI 45.

Key Issues

Section 216 continues to apply to prohibit the re-use of a name or sufficiently similar name where oldco and newco have common directors.

The relevant rules now dealing with the exceptions are contained in new rules 22.1 - 22.7.

The three exceptions remain broadly the same but there are some key differences to note.

Exceptions to the prohibition

The case confirmed that the provisions of the CPR apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of a winding up order. The case further stated that any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period.

Facts

On 6 April 2017, new Insolvency Rules came into force which will affect creditors’ rights in most insolvency procedures. More information on the insolvency changes generally are available in this blog post.