An administrator appointed under the Act was free to dispose of a company’s assets without first making an application to court for permission, and without first obtaining approval of his proposal from the creditors. The administrator’s role would require difficult and sometimes urgent decisions. Judges: Neuberger J Citations: Times 23-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999 Statutes: Insolvency Act … Continue reading In Re T and D Industries Plc and Another: ChD 23 Nov 1999
The administrators held cash. They proposed a distribution giving creditors who would on a winding up be preferential, full preference. They appealed refusal by the court to sanction the proposal. Held: The court had no power to make such an order. From the cases there were three sources for the court’s power to sanction, or … Continue reading In re Luna Metal Products Ltd (in Administration): CA 14 Dec 2006
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
Arden J was asked to approve aproposal that the company should go into voluntary liquidation, on the basis that, prior to that happening, the administrators would pay into a trust account in their own name a sum equal to the total amount owing to the preferential creditors, from which account the preferential creditors would be … Continue reading In re UCT (UK) Ltd: ChD 2001
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
The Court has no authority to make an order to control how any future liquidator of a company should distribute the assets on insolvency. It is wrong to seek to fetter his acts and discretions in this way. Citations: Times 19-May-1997 Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 18(3), 14(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Insolvency Updated: 08 April … Continue reading In Re Powershore (Trading) Ltd; In Re Homepower Stores Ltd: ChD 19 May 1997
A court has no jurisdiction to make an order which seeks to bind future decisions of future liquidator in favour of group of creditors. Judges: Mr Justice Lightman Citations: Gazette 18-Jun-1997,  1 WLR 1280 Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 18(3) 14(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – In re Luna Metal Products Ltd … Continue reading In Re Powerstore (Trading) Ltd; In Re Homepower Stores Ltd: ChD 18 Jun 1997
The section gave the court a jurisdiction to authorise payments to people would be preferred creditors in a winding up. Judges: Lewison J Citations: Times 27-Dec-2006 Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 18(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries plc ChD 30-Mar-1984 If a decision of a court has been … Continue reading In re Cromptons Leisure Machines Ltd: ChD 13 Dec 2006
Citations:  EWHC 402 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 168(3), Payment Services Regulations 2017 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Insolvency, Financial Services Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.672157
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 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.
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 . .