Allegation that the payment of dividends was in breach of Part 23 of the 2006 Act. The direcors had signed the necessary certicate as to solvency before resolving to reduce the company capital and paying a dividend. Held: When makingsuch a statement, the directors were not being asked what would be the position if a … Continue reading BTI 2014 Llc v Sequana Sa and Others: ChD 11 Jul 2016
An application under the Act which was not part of any other proceedings may be made in any division of the High Court. Times 02-May-1994 Insolvency Act 1986 423 England and Wales Insolvency Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.90018
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. Longmore, David Richards, Henderson LJJ  EWCA Civ 112,  2 All ER (Comm) 13,  BCC 631,  2 … Continue reading BTI 2014 Llc v Sequana SA and Others: CA 6 Feb 2019
The claimant requested the revocation of a grant of probate to the defendant. They had suspicions about the will propounded and lodged a caveat which was warned off and the grant completed. In breach of court orders, the defendant had transferred substantial estate assets abroad. The defendant said that the burden of proving that the … Continue reading The Solicitor for the Affairs of HM Treasury v Doveton and Another: ChD 13 Nov 2008
Complaint was made that before the insolvency, the director of the compay had put its assets beyond the creditors. He replied that had acted so on legal advice: ‘Mr Maughan stressed . . that what he did he did on legal advice from solicitors and counsel and without any dishonest intent. . . however, seem … Continue reading Arbuthnot Leasing International Ltd v Havelet Leasing Ltd (No 2): ChD 1990
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set aside as a fraud on his creditors. Held: To have such orders set … Continue reading Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another: CA 12 May 2006
Section 423(3) of the 1986 Act requires a plaintiff to show a dominant purpose to remove assets from the reach of actual or potential claimants or creditors, but not excluding the possibility that there might be other purposes behind the relevant . .
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; . .
The Commissioners claim was founded in an alleged conspiracy from a ‘missing trader intra-community fraud’ amounting to andpound;96 million.
Held: Section 423 had extra territorial effect. . .
The claimant sought to set aside transactions entered into by the defendants which, it said were intended fraudulently to defeat claims by their creditors.
Held: When considering the extent of recovery available under the sections of the 1986 . .
The court examined the effect of section 423 on sale and leaseback transactions. . .
Claim for relief under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 – sale of a property at an undervalue . .
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 . .
Appeal against order setting aside transaction as falling foul of section 423(1) of the 1986 Act. . .
In 1989, the taxpayer transferred property by means of a trust deed in favour of his son in consideration of his ‘natural love and affection’ for him. Four years later the commissioners investigated his tax affairs, and concluded that there were . .
The respondent farmers charged the farm by way of an agricultural floating charge to the claimants. On coming into difficulties, they set up a limited company and granted a tenancy in its favour and transferred assets to it. The bank obtained . .
A creditor’s claim to set aside an insolvent debtor’s transaction as being at an undervalue could not be pursued to benefit that creditor alone, and a plaintiff was not entitled to his full judgment and costs. A conspiracy claim was hard to . .
The second defendant, a solicitor, had fraudulently taken money from trusts, and paid money into trusts for his own family. It was claimed that the payments were intended to defeat the recovery of the funds. The trustees sought protection on costs . .
The defendants had obtained world-wide Mareva injunctions in support of substantive proceedings by way of their counterclaim to enforce an arbitration award against the plaintiffs under section 26 against two companies, Aiglon Limited and L’Aiglon . .
A tenancy granted by an insolvent farmer to his wife was set aside because of additional benefits which were granted. The tenancy was held to have been granted at an undervalue, even though the court was unable precisely to measure the value of the . .
A transaction could be deemed to be at an undervalue and caught by the section even though it made no difference to the overall assets and even though only one rather than the generality of creditors was prejudiced by the transaction. Here, by . .
Where it was alleged that shares in a UK company had been sold at an undervalue, so as to allow a challenge in insolvency proceedings, the leave of the court was still required if the pleadings were to be served abroad. When the court considered . .
The defendant sought a second adjournment of his application for leave to appeal against summary judgment for $21m with interest in respect of a judgment obtained in Texas. The defendant was said to have given his personal guarantee for the purchase . .
Appeal against finding that an assignment of book debts was void, as it had been made after the commencement of the Company’s winding up or, even if that were not the case, should be set aside (a) under section 238 of the Act as a transaction at an undervalue and (b) under section 423 of … Continue reading Barons Bridging Finance 1 Ltd and Others v Barons Finance Ltd: CA 14 Jun 2016
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates. Held: The court dismissed the application: ‘First, the fact that there is, in accordance with my … Continue reading Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others: ChD 30 Jul 2012
A company liquidator applied for an order under sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that a director should disclose information to that liquidator. The Director objected that to do so would infringe his privilege against self-incrimination. In separate proceedings, heard for these purposes together, two other companies sought remedies of an account … Continue reading Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd (In Provisional Liquidation) v Maxwell and Another: CA 13 May 1992
The court was asked ‘What relation should the costs and remuneration bear to the circumstances, and in particular the size, of the bankruptcy?’ The bankrupt had considered that the costs first awarded to the trustee in bankruptcy and the trustee’s solicitors were disproportionate. On appeal they had been reduced, but he appealed again seeking a … Continue reading Brook v Reed: CA 25 Mar 2011
The trustee sought to have set aside as an unlawful preference, the payment of 75% of the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home to the bankrupt’s wife, saying that the payment had been made after the presentation of the petition. The parties had previously compromised a claim for ancillary relief in the divorce … Continue reading Warwick (Formerly Yarwood) v Trustee In Bankruptcy of Clive Graham Yarwood: ChD 13 Sep 2010
Application made by the trustees in bankruptcy in the context of an application which was made by Insolvency Act notice dated 29 January 2019, for relief in relation to two payments to the fourth and fifth respondents respectively under Sections . .
Decision on two reserved CMC matters: The first relates to the costs of a re-amendment to plead foreign law; the second is an application to strike out or for summary judgment in respect of a claim under s. 423 Insolvency Act 1986. . .
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 . .
The company sought to claim under a life policy. The deceased had died in Scotland insolvent. The trustee of the policy had declared that he held it on trust for the claimant, but the defendant, the judicial factor of the estate, said the . .
The word ‘and’ in sections 423(2)(a) and 423(2)(b) is to be read conjunctively not disjunctively. Section 238(3) is to be interpreted as requiring restoration of the former position ‘as far as possible’ or ‘as far as practicable’, and that . .
A bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy disposed of his share in a house at an undervalue. His wife appealed an order that the share disposed of should vest entirely in the trustee in bankruptcy. Matrimonial proceedings had also been commenced.
Application for permission to amend the particulars of claim in proceedings brought to set aside a transaction under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or to declare it a sham. . .
Trustee’s application to have set aside a gift at an undervalue. . .
A bankrupt labourer (aged 30) after the bankruptcy order issued a writ against a doctor who had treated him for back pain before the bankruptcy order, claiming damages for negligence, including damages for pain and suffering as well as damages for . .
‘The main question on this appeal is whether the trial judge made an error of law in rejecting a claim that a payment of money made by the first defendant as a gift to his son (the second defendant) was made for the purpose of putting assets beyond . .