The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith [2002] EWHC 2784 (Ch) Bailii Insolvency Act 1986 England and Wales Insolvency Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178538
The Hon Mr Justice Jacob [2002] EWHC 2815 (Ch), [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 23, [2003] BPIR 324 Bailii Insolvency Act 1986 England and Wales Citing: See Also – Highberry Limited, Highberry Llc v Colt Telecom Group Plc; in Re Colt Telecom Group plc (No 1) ChD 25-Nov-2002 Application for disclosure of documents, the provision of … Continue reading Colt Telecom Group Plc, In the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986: ChD 20 Dec 2002
The tenant company went into liquidation, the receiver disclaimed the lease, and the landlord claimed compensation under the Act. The question concerned how the compensation was to be calculated. Held: Where a solvent tenant under an onerous lease goes into voluntary liquidation, and the liquidator disclaims the lease, the right to payment of rent disappears, … Continue reading In Re Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Ltd v Bairstow and Another: HL 4 Feb 1999
A waste management licence could constitute both property and onerous property for the purposes of the Insolvency Act. It could also be an interest incidental to the land to which it related. Because of this the liquidator of a waste management company could disclaim the licence without committing an offence under the Act. Citations: Times … Continue reading Official Receiver v Environment Agency: CA 5 Aug 1999
The landlord had taken a guarantee of the lease from the tenant when granting a licence to assign to the new tenant. That new tenant had become insolvent and the liquidator had disclaimed the lease. The court considered the position under Hindcastle after the 1995 Act. Held: The guaranteer’s appeal succeeded. The effect of the … Continue reading Shaw v Doleman: CA 1 Apr 2009
(Orse: Park Air Services) The tenant company went into a members’ solvent liquidation, and disclaimed the lease. At the time, the rental value had fallen very much below the contractual rent. The landlord sought to prove the balance of the rent with . .
A waste management licence was property, but public policy required that such licences should not be disclaimable by liquidators. There is a need to preserve responsibilities of those taking such licences. . .
An action by a company under a shareholder’s agreement was compromised. The other shareholder now sought to commence an action against the party in breach for his personal losses. The defendant argued that the company’s compromise was binding also against the other shareholder. Held: The company had become obliged to compromise the claim by the … Continue reading Giles v Rhind: CA 17 Oct 2002
The Court considered a Director’s duty to act in the interests of his company’s creditors. The Directors were said to have paid out an excessive dividend to put assets beyond the reach of its creditors. Judges: Longmore, David Richards, Henderson LJJ Citations: [2019] EWCA Civ 112, [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 13, [2019] BCC 631, … Continue reading BTI 2014 Llc v Sequana SA and Others: CA 6 Feb 2019
The deceased had given a guarantee of the tenant’s covenant given by his company under a lease. The court was asked whether the obligations under the guarantee survived his death after he company was wound up. Held: Chadwick LJ explained the Hindcastle case: ‘Lord Nicholls explained in Hindcastle v. Barbara Attenborough why the former practice … Continue reading Basch v Stekel and Another: CA 25 Jul 2000
Registrar Simmonds considered that: ‘in order to convert what is clearly an unliquidated sum to a liquidated sum there must be . . clear and unequivocal conduct or agreement on the part of the debtor to demonstrate acceptance of those bills of costs such as to forego the right of assessment and to convert them … Continue reading Re Le Winton: ChD 31 Jul 2007
Company directors in an insolvent liquidation faced proceedings by the liquidators. They resisted providing additional evidence under examination by the liquidators. Held: The sections under the 1986 Act should be read together. Where a director faced serious charges, requiring him to provide evidence against himself would be oppressive. The existence of such proceedings must be … Continue reading Shierson and Another v Rastogi and Another: CA 9 Nov 2002
The requirement that a statutory demand must be signed by someone claiming authority of the creditor to sign it could be satisfied by someone who in fact did have authority in law to make the demand. The rules should be read according to its purpose. Judges: Morritt, Chadwicj LJJ, Charles J Citations: Times 14-Jun-2000, [2000] … Continue reading Dacorum Borough Council v Horne: CA 26 May 2000
Application for disclosure of documents, the provision of information, and directions for cross-examination in an unusual petition for an administration order. No-action clauses have been the subject of discussion in the International Court of Justice (although not the subject of decision) in relation to insolvency proceedings brought directly by bondholders. Lawrence Collins J [2002] EWHC … Continue reading Highberry Limited, Highberry Llc v Colt Telecom Group Plc; in Re Colt Telecom Group plc (No 1): ChD 25 Nov 2002
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap agreements were unlawful. Kleinwort Benson then sought restitution of … Continue reading Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc: HL 29 Jul 1998
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, alleging abuse of process by the prosecution. He had transferred land from the company just before it went into liquidation, and admitted the offence under the 1986 Act. He complained that the liquidator having recovered the land the further confiscation action was an abuse. Held: The transfer had … Continue reading Berr, Regina (on the Prosecution of) v Lowe: CACD 17 Feb 2009
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
judgment on consequential matters following my main judgment . .
