The employers went into receivership in November 1983. A number of the employees were made redundant but the receiver hoped to carry on with the remaining workforce until February. However, a major customer threatened to withdraw its custom unless the undertaking had been sold as a going concern by 24 November. Negotiations for a sale … Continue reading Secretary of State for Employment v Spence: CA 1986
A judgment obtained by default against a bankrupt in a foreign jurisdiction, was not sufficient evidence of itself, to establish that the debt which it proved had been obtained or created by fraud, or by a fraud to which they were a party. The party had been debarred from defending himself, and a finding on … Continue reading Masters and Others v Leaver: CA 2 Sep 1999
The idea of fraudulent activity under the Act was confined to actual dishonesty of the defendant in line with Derry v Peek. It should not be extended to include acts which were only fraudulent under wider notions of equitable fraud. In this case assumed undue influence could not be sufficient to come within the section. … Continue reading Mander v Evans: ChD 12 Jul 2001
Judges: HHJ Halliwell Citations:  EWHC 1060 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 279(3) 366(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Insolvency Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.677539
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. Held: An aggrieved objector to local government spending should pursue his rights under the Act and … Continue reading Lloyd v McMahon: HL 12 Mar 1987
The section gives the court jurisdiction to make an administration order if it ‘(a) is satisfied that a company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts’ and ‘(b) considers that the making of an order . . would be likely to achieve’ one or more of the purposes specified in s8(3). … Continue reading In re Harris Simons Construction Limited: ChD 1989
Disputes arose between shareholders in a family company. Proceedings which expressly excluded the company were settled, but the company became insolvent. A later settlement was refused approval by the judge without the creditors consent. The claimant now sought a declaration that the earlier compromise bound the company. The company argued that the agreement was conditional … Continue reading Thakrar v Ciro Citterio Menswear Plc In Administration: ChD 1 Oct 2002
The defendant had failed to account for the disappearance of a substantial part of his estate to the official receiver following his bankruptcy. He appealed his conviction for failing to provide an account, saying that the requirement to provide information infringed his right of silence and to a fair trial. Held: The provisions were not … Continue reading Regina v Kearns: CACD 22 Mar 2002
The claimant asserted as against the liquidator, a floating and registered charge over the company’s assets. The liquidator said that it had been granted within the twelve months prior to the onset of the insolvency, was caught by section 245(3)(b), and requested rectification of the register. The claimants relied on an opinion from senior counsel. … Continue reading Rehman v Chamberlain and Another: ChD 6 Sep 2011
The appellant sought to recover overpayments of benefits and Social Fund Loans, after the respondent had had a Debt relief order. Held: The Secretary of State’s appeal failed. The ‘net entitlement principle’ argued for did not exist. The entitlement is a statutory one, and any liability to repay is separate and independent, being only a … Continue reading Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Payne and Another: SC 14 Dec 2011
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 bankrupt had received his discharge from the bankruptcy and the debts associated. After the discharge he received a statutory demand from the trustees of a pension fund claiming sums from him alleging his dishonest breach of trust. He replied by . .
The parties had agreed to an ancillary relief order on their divorce. The husband was made bankrupt without having paid the lump sum agreed. The former wife and now claimant had received no dividend. Debts which were not provable in the bankruptcy . .
A stay of execution of an order against matrimonial assets was not defeated by bankruptcy. As to the interplay of the Insolvency Rules and matrimonial proceedings.
Balcombe LJ said: ‘I cannot leave this case without saying something about the . .
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
The ordinary procedure of an insolvency involves two-stage, a statutory demand followed by a bankruptcy petition. The service of a ‘statutory demand’ in the prescribed form is simply one means of establishing ‘inability to pay’. The procedure is . .
An airline company went into administration. The airport seized two airplanes. The administrators claimed they were property within the administration, could not be seized without a court order, and the court should exercise its discretion not to . .