Computer Servicing South East Ltd, Re Insolvency Act 1986: CA 19 Sep 2001
. .
Search Results for: Insolvency Act 1986 183
Official Receiver As Liquidator of Celtic Extraction Ltd and Bluestone Chemicals Ltd v Environmental Agency: CA 14 Jul 1999
A waste management licence is ‘property’ for the purposes of the Act. . .
Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Mitchell v Carter: ChD 1997
Section 183 of the 1986 Act, which precludes a creditor who levies execution or attaches a debt after commencement of a winding up, from retaining the benefit of his execution or attachment, does not apply to executions or attachments in foreign jurisdictions. Judges: Blackburne J Citations: [1997] 1 BCLC 673 Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 183 … Continue reading Mitchell v Carter: ChD 1997
In Re Buckingham International Plc: ChD 20 Nov 1997
There is no power in the court to make any arrangement which will result in the preference of one set of creditors over others of the same class. . .
Brenner v Revenue and Customs; In re Modern Jet Support Centre Ltd: ChD 21 Jul 2005
The court was asked whether the process of distraint against goods for unpaid tax under section 61 of the 1970 Act is an ‘execution’ within section 183 of the 1986 Act which applies where a creditor has issued, but not completed, execution against . .
Herbert Berry Associates Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 1976
The collector of taxes distrained on the goods of the company under section 61 TMA 1970 for unpaid taxes and the company entered into a walking possession agreement. Before the collector had sold the goods, and completed the distress, the company entered into voluntary winding-up and a liquidator was appointed. There was a deficiency of … Continue reading Herbert Berry Associates Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: ChD 1976
Potts v Hickman: HL 1941
The Plaintiff was the landlord of certain premises and had as at 29 September 1938, a right to distrain for unpaid rent in the sum of andpound;15 11s. However, on 20 September, the defendant, as bailiff for Wolverhampton Corporation, had levied on the tenant under a warrant for distress for rates granted by a justice … Continue reading Potts v Hickman: HL 1941
In re a Debtor (No 784 of 1991): 1992
The court considered how earlier cases were to be considered given that the 1986 Act was intended to be a complete and self contained code: ‘Those authorities show that, in approaching the language of the 1986 Act, one must pay particular attention to the purposes and policies of its own provisions and be wary of … Continue reading In re a Debtor (No 784 of 1991): 1992
Re Priory Garage (Walthamstow) Limited: ChD 2001
The court considered the relevance of a statutory limitation period in relation to applications to set aside transactions as being at an undervalue or as voidable preferences under section 238 to 241 of the 1986 Act. Applications to set aside transactions under the sections are generally actions on a specialty within the meaning of section … Continue reading Re Priory Garage (Walthamstow) Limited: ChD 2001
Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
Wood v Lowe and Others: ChD 5 May 2016
Roger Kaye QC HHJ [2016] EWHC 1010 (Ch) Bailii Insolvency Act 1986 England and Wales Insolvency, Trusts Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566183
LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others: SC 17 May 2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus. Held: The Court considered the so called waterfall of distributions made on liquidation which proved to be … Continue reading LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others: SC 17 May 2017
T and N Limited, Associated Companies of T and N Ltd (In Administration) v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc, and others: ChD 9 May 2003
T and N had exposure to asbestosis claims; these claims were insured by Lloyd’s but on terms that if payments were to be made, T and N should make certain reimbursements to Lloyd’s. T and N then insured with a captive company known as Curzon their liability to make such reimbursements. Lloyd’s called on T … Continue reading T and N Limited, Associated Companies of T and N Ltd (In Administration) v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc, and others: ChD 9 May 2003
Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others: CA 26 Jun 2009
The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The statutory prohibition against creditors bringing proceedings against a company being wound up by the court … Continue reading Harms Offshore AHT Taurus Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others: CA 26 Jun 2009
In re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd: SC 19 Oct 2011
The bank had been put into administrative receivership, and the court was now asked as to how distributions were to be made, and in particular as to the application of the equitable rule in Cherry v Boultbee in the rule against double proof as it applies in situations involving guarantees and other sureties. Held: The … Continue reading In re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd: SC 19 Oct 2011
Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others: SC 19 May 2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be transferred only if the claimant’s brother paid all the Inheritance Tax. It was transferred … Continue reading Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others: SC 19 May 2010
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc: HL 29 Jul 1998
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
Inland Revenue v Hashmi and Another: CA 3 May 2002
The question for the court was whether when there was more than one purpose of a transaction the proscribed purpose under the section had to be dominant or not.
Held: It was not necessary for the proscribed purpose to be the dominant purpose; . .
Raymond Saul and Co (A Firm) v Holden and Another; In re Hemming (deceased): ChD 12 Nov 2008
The claimant was sole residuary legatee of his mother’s estate. He became bankrupt, but was released by automatic discharge from the bankruptcy before the administration of the estate was completed. He challenged the solicitors who wished to pay the . .
Smurthwaite v Simpson-Smith and Another: CA 25 Jul 2006
Application to set aside individual voluntary arrangement. . .
In re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd: CA 11 May 2010
The court was asked as to the set-off, in a company administration, of future debts owed by the company to its creditors and by those creditors to the company, and whether the effect of those provisions was that, after the future debts were . .
Bagnall QC v the Official Receiver: ChD 18 Jun 2003
The bankrupt was to receive his automatic discharge. The receiver had applied ex parte to suspend the automatic discharge. The bankrupt appealed.
Held: The court had power to make such an order. The court had seen strong prima facie evidence . .
Lloyd v McMahon: HL 12 Mar 1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.
Harms Offshore AHT ‘Taurus’ Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others: CA 26 Jun 2009
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 632, [2009] Bus LR 1663, [2010] 1 Ch 187, [2010] 2 WLR 349 Links: Bailii, Times Coram: Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Sir John Chadwick The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the … Continue reading Harms Offshore AHT ‘Taurus’ Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others: CA 26 Jun 2009
