Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Insolvency - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 50 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.


 
 In Re A Company No.2340; ChD 2001 - Unreported

 
 In re UCT (UK) Ltd; ChD 2001 - [2001] 1 WLR 436
 
Re Priory Garage (Walthamstow) Limited [2001] BPIR 144
2001
ChD
John Randall QC
Insolvency, Limitation
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 8 of the 1980 Act and subject to a 12 year limitation period accordingly; but where the substance of the claim is not to set aside a transaction, but to recover a sum of money, such applications will be governed by section 9, and thus subject to a six-year limitation period.
Insolvency Act 1986 238 - Limitation Act 1980 8
1 Citers



 
 Re Brabon; 2001 - [2001] 1 BCLC 11
 
Shepheard -v- Lamey [2001] BPIR 939
2001
ChD
Jacob J
Insolvency
An application was made for the removal of a liquidator: "After all, all that one has to find is some good cause why a person should not continue as a liquidator. You do not have to prove everything in sight; you do not have to prove, for example, misfeasance as such: you do not have to show more than there may well be a case of misfeasance or, indeed, incompetence."
1 Citers


 
Meftah -v- Lloyds TSB Bank [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 741
2001
ChD
Lawrence J
Land, insolvency
Receivers of property under charge are not obliged before sale to spend money on repairs.
1 Citers



 
 Ashe -v- Mumford; CA 2001 - [2001] 33 HLR 67
 
In re Anglo American Insurance Ltd [2001] BCLC 755
2001

Neuberger J
Company, Insolvency

1 Citers



 
 Mulkerrins -v- Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm); CA 12-Jan-2001 - Times, 12 January 2001; Gazette, 01 February 2001
 
Phillips (Liquidator of A J Bekhor & Co ) and Another -v- Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 23 January 2001; [2001] UKHL 2; [2001] 1 All ER 673; [2001] 1 WLR 143
18 Jan 2001
HL
Lord Scott
Insolvency
The company sold its business to the respondent for one pound, but the respondent agreed to sublease computer equipment for an amount equivalent to the value of the company. The company defaulted, and the computer equipment was recovered. The respondent refused to pay under the sub-lease. The trustee of the company in liquidation sought to recover the payment on the basis that the agreement had been at an undervalue. The respondent had not genuinely sought to sub-lease the computer equipment. Held: "The value of an asset that is being offered for sale is, prima facie, not less than the amount which a reasonably well informed purchaser is prepared, in arm's length negotiations, to pay for it." The payments, repairing the sale at an undervalue, were recoverable.
Insolvency Act 1986 238(4)(b)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ House of Lords ]
 
Buhr -v- Barclays Bank plc Gazette, 09 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1223; [2002] 1 P & CR DG7; [2002] BPIR 25; [2001] 31 EGCS 103; [2001] NPC 124
26 Jan 2001
CA
Woolf LCJ, Tuckey, Arden LJJ
Land, Trusts, Insolvency
The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to discharge the first charge, and then repay unsecured creditors. The bank claimed the money had been received on constructive trust. Held: The court confirmed that the failure to register the charge only voided it as against the purchaser. When the bank's security was destroyed, a security interest was created automatically in the asset which replaced it. The sale by the husband and wife was not authorised by the bank, and the judge had concluded correctly.
Ships collided in the Malacca Straits. The wreck was insured, and mortgaged.
Law of Property Act 1925 63
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cleaver, Bodden -v- Delta American Reinsurance Company Appeal No 5 of 2000; [2001] UKPC 6
1 Feb 2001
PC
Lord Steyn Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Patrick Russell
Insolvency, Company, Commonwealth, Wills and Probate
(Cayman Islands) In the course of trading the company had given security to carry on its insurance business. On its insolvency, the administrators required the creditor to bring into hotchpot credit received in a foreign jurisdiction. It was said that having obtained an advantage over other unsecured creditors for the amount secured, the claiming creditor should make available to all creditors the payment already received. Held: The difference here, was that the payment received had arisen from a letter of credit, and had never been part of the insolvent company's estate. Hotchpot applies only to assets regarded as part of the estate in liquidation. Rule 4.88 did not operate as an exception to the hotchpot rules. Appeal dismissed.
Insolvency Rules 1986 4.88 4.96
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]

 
 Swift and Another -v- Dairywise Farms Limited and others; CA 1-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 145

 
 Connolly -v- Sellers Arenascene Ltd; CA 2-Feb-2001 - Times, 08 March 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 184
 
Regina -v- Bevis Times, 08 February 2001
8 Feb 2001
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Insolvency
A distinction has to be made in between sections 208 and 213 of the Act. Section 208 implies an element of dishonesty, rather than an intent to defraud. The difference lay in the absence of a requirement to establish that the defendant to intended to benefit himself. Though his offence was not technical, and it struck at a lot of company law and the winding up and liquidation processes, it was distinct from fraudulent trading. A custodial sentence was proper, but his previous good character suggested a reduced sentence of nine months imprisonment and a reduction in disqualification to two years.
Insolvency Act 1986


 
 Hurst -v- Bennett and Others In Re A Debtor (No 302 of 1997); CA 16-Feb-2001 - Times, 15 March 2001; Gazette, 26 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 182
 
Macdonald -v- Taree Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 312
21 Feb 2001
CA
May LJ
Insolvency

[ Bailii ]
 
In the Matter of Hawk Insurance Company Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 241; [2001] 2 BCLC 480
23 Feb 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ, Pill LJ
Company, Insolvency
Arrangements for putting in place voluntary arrangements for companies. Discussing Sovereign Insurance: "When applying Bowen LJ's test to the question "are the rights of those who are to be affected by the scheme proposed such that the scheme can be seen as single arrangement; or ought it to be regarded, on a true analysis, as a number of linked arrangements?" it is necessary to ensure not only that those whose rights really are so dissimilar that they cannot consult together with a view to a common interest should be treated as parties to distinct arrangements – so that they should have their own separate meetings – but also that those whose rights are sufficiently similar to the rights of others that they can properly consult together should be required to do so; lest by ordering separate meetings the court gives a veto to a minority group. The safeguard against majority oppression, as I sought to point out in the BTR case ([2001] 1 BCLC 740 at 747) is that the court is not bound by the decision of the meeting. It is important Bowen LJ's test should not be applied in such a way that it becomes an instrument of oppression by a minority. "
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Camden Wines Ltd -v- Medlink International Incorporated [2001] EWCA Civ 284
27 Feb 2001
CA

Contract, Insolvency

[ Bailii ]
 
Dear -v- Reeves Times, 22 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 277
1 Mar 2001
CA

Land, Insolvency
A right of pre-emption granted over land was property. It had value and was capable of assignment, and was therefore a chose in action. As such it was vested the trustee in bankruptcy on the insolvency of the owner of the right. It may be difficult to value, and might not become exercisable, but it remained property.
Insolvency Act 1986 436
[ Bailii ]
 
Cork -v- Rawlins Times, 15 March 2001; Gazette, 03 May 2001
15 Mar 2001
CA

Insurance, Insolvency
The bankrupt had taken out insurance against disability. He came to make a claim. He asserted that the benefits were personal to him, and not to be taken by the trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of creditors. The court held that the benefits were contractual, forming part of the bankrupts general estate. There was no precedent for excepting from the bankrupt's estate, assets on the basis of some close and personal connection with or dependence on the condition of the bankrupt.

 
Multicultural Media Centre for the Millenium Ltd, Re [2001] EWCA Civ 509
22 Mar 2001
CA

Insolvency

Insolvency Act 1986
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gibbons -v- Scottish & Newcastle Plc; CA 28-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 646
 
Harrington -v- Wakeling [2001] EWCA Civ 620
27 Apr 2001
CA
Jonathan Parker LJ
Insolvency, Company

[ Bailii ]

 
 Patel -v- Jones; CA 24-May-2001 - Times, 29 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 779

 
 Haq -v- Singh and Another; CA 25-May-2001 - Times, 10 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 957; [2001] 1 WLR 1594

 
 Stocznia Gdanska SA -v- Latvian Shipping Company and Others; Admn 25-May-2001 - Times, 25 May 2001; [2001] EWHC 500 (Comm)

 
 Agnew and Kevin James Bearsley -v- The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and Official Assignee for the Estate In Bankruptcy of Bruce William Birtwhistle and Mark Leslie Birtwhistle; PC 5-Jun-2001 - [2001] 2 AC 710; [2001] UKPC 28; [2001] BCC 259; [2001] 2 BCLC 188; [2001] Lloyd's Rep Bank 251; [2001] 3 WLR 454
 
In Re Banco Nacional De Cuba Times, 18 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 2039
7 Jun 2001
ChD
Lightman J
International, Civil Procedure Rules, Insolvency, Litigation Practice
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 such an application, it had to look not just at the fact that the property to which the claim related is in the jurisdiction, but also at reality of the extent of the connection with the UK, and the difficulties if any of enforcement. Here the claimant had not demonstrated that the purpose of the transaction might be to defeat creditors, and one would, in its own jurisdiction, enjoy immunity from enforcement. Section 423 "extends to any claim for relief, whether for damages or otherwise, so long as it is related to property located within the jurisdiction" and "the claim under section 423 relates to the shares and particularly the disposition of the shares." By CPR 6.20(10) the court may assume jurisdiction if the whole subject-matter of the claim relates to property situated in England.
Lightman J: "The critical differences between RSC, O 11, r 1(1)(g) and CPR 6.20(10) is the substitution for the words "land situate within the jurisdiction" of the words "relates to property located within the jurisdiction". The implications are that: (1) the rule is no longer limited to land and now extends to personal property; and (2) instead of the whole claim having to be confined to a claim to a proprietary or possessory interest, it is sufficient that the whole claim relates to property. The evident purpose of the new rule is to lay down a single rule in place of the three earlier rules which embraces and extends beyond the contents of those rules. It is to be noted that at p 128 of the Autumn 2000 Civil Procedure ("White Book") the comment is made on CPR 6.20(10): "This wide and new provision is no longer confined to land and the old cases are redundant." In my view on its proper construction the rule cannot be construed as confined to claims relating to the ownership or possession of property. It extends to any claim for relief (whether for damages or otherwise) so long as it is related to property located within the jurisdiction. This construction vests in the Court a wide jurisdiction, but since the jurisdiction is discretionary the Court can and will in each case consider whether the character and closeness of the relationship is such that the exorbitant jurisdiction against foreigners abroad should properly be exercised."
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20. - Insolvency Act 1986 423
1 Citers


 
Money Markets International Stockbrokers Ltd -v- London Stock Exchange Ltd and Another
10 Jul 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Company, Financial Services, Insolvency
MMI were members of the London Stock Exchange, and accordingly held one share in that non-profit making institution. The share was valueless. Anticipating losing their membership and so the share, and also the demutualisation, the share was to be transferred to a third party. At that point it would become worth £3 million. Because the ownership of the share was merely an incident of membership, there was no conflict between the rules which deprived it both of membership and the share, and the rules which invalidated the transfer of assets of an insolvent person. Until the de-mutualisation, the share remained worthless, and the insolvency rules did not bite.
1 Cites


 
Money Markets International Stockbrokers Ltd -v- London Stock Exchange Ltd and Another [2001] EWHC 1052 (Ch); [2002] 1 WLR 1150
10 Jul 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Insolvency, Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mander -v- Evans Times, 25 June 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001
12 Jul 2001
ChD

Insolvency
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.
Insolvency Act 1986 281(3)

 
Simms -v- Oakes [2001] EWCA Civ 1298
19 Jul 2001
CA

Insolvency

[ Bailii ]

 
 In re Pantmaenog Timber Co Ltd; CA 25-Jul-2001 - Times, 08 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2002] Ch 239
 
Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- Hashmi and Another Gazette, 25 October 2001; Times, 02 November 2001
4 Oct 2001
ChD
Hart J
Insolvency, Land
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 substantial undisclosed business profits. He died in 1997 owing substantial sums, and the commissioners sought to set aside the 1989 deed as being made in order to put his assets beyond reach. Held: The possible dual purpose of the transaction did not prevent the inference, supported by the facts, that the statutory requirement was satisfied, and the deed was set aside. The execution of a deed transferring his beneficial interest in business premises to his son in consideration of "natural love and affection" was a transaction at an undervalue.
Insolvency Act 1986 423
1 Citers


 
Hurst -v- Bennett and others [2001] 2 BCLC 290; [2001] EWCA Civ 1398
8 Oct 2001
CA
Arden LJ
Insolvency, Trusts
A statutory demand served on Mr Hurst in relation to an indemnity on partners to trustees of the lease would not be set aside because of Mr Hurst's claims against the partnership. It was because this claim was against the partners in their capacity as such, and their claim was advanced in their capacity as trustees. Mr Hurst owed money to four trustees who held a lease for themselves, Mr Hurst and fifteen other former partners. The trustees' statutory demand was not subject to Mr Hurst's cross-demand against his nineteen other former partners. The amount due to the four trustees was due to them personally whereas any amount due to Mr Hurst was due to him from all the other partners jointly. Where a debt constitutes a trust obligation there can be no set off against that amount for want of mutuality.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Multicultural Media Centre for the Millennium Ltd -v- Millennium Commission Times, 16 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1687
19 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Litigation Practice, Insolvency
Where a court was faced with a situation where both parties wished to proceed, but one wanted to put in an affidavit which the other had not had chance to examine, it became impossible for that judge to proceed fairly. A winding up order made under such circumstances was set aside. The case was remitted to another judge of the Chancery Division.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
National Westminster Bank plc -v- Jones and Others Gazette, 15 November 2001; Times, 19 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1541; [2002] 1 BCLC 55
24 Oct 2001
CA
Judge LJ, Mummery LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Banking, Agriculture, Insolvency
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 declarations that the charges remained valid and that the new tenancies and assignments should be set aside. The tenants appealed, but failed. The admitted purpose of the transactions was to put the assets beyond the reach of the bank, and that they were at an undervalue. The Agricultural Credits Act operated therefore to crystallise the charge. As to s423, it: "requires a comparison to be made between two figures. For that purpose the court must arrive at a conclusion based on actual values. The evidence may, of course, disclose a range of suggested figures. But the court must ascertain from the evidence the actual value against which the consideration for the transaction must be measured. That was the approach adopted by the judge. It is correct."
Insolvency Act 1986 423 - Agricultural Credits Act 1928 7
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Ebert [2001] EWHC Ch 457
12 Nov 2001
ChD
Patton J
Insolvency

[ Bailii ]
 
Humberclyde Finance Group Ltd -v- Hicks [2001] EWHC 700 (Ch)
14 Nov 2001

Neuberger J
Insolvency

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sekhon -v- Bains [2001] EWCA Civ 1919
20 Nov 2001
CA

Insolvency

[ Bailii ]
 
Atherton -v- Ogunlende and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1844
20 Nov 2001
CA
Neuberger LJ
Insolvency
It would be a waste of court time and the parties' money to allow a debtor, who had already failed on his application to set aside a statutory demand, to advance the same arguments by way of challenge to the petition debt on the hearing of the petition: "However, in general, it seems to me right in principle and in the public interest that, if a party has raised an argument in a proper forum, where it has been considered in connection with a particular process, in this case a bankruptcy or a prospective bankruptcy, and from which forum he had a right of appeal if he wished to exercise it, if that argument is rejected and he does not appeal, it requires exceptional circumstances before he can raise the same argument at a later stage during the same process." and "It seems that the principle enshrined in the passage in the judgment of Vinelott J, [in Brillouet v Hachette Magazines Ltd [1996] BPIR 518] approved by Chadwick LJ, and indeed his own judgment in Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland [2000] BPIR 683, indicates that the principle should not be abrogated simply because the party has found a better way of putting the same point, or wants to put in more evidence to support the same point. If there were evidence from Mr Atherton as to specific facts which really make a difference, and which he was unable to put forward on 11 March 1999 through no fault of his own (eg because it was then unavailable or unknown to him at that hearing) different considerations might apply. However, to my mind there is nothing in the subsequent evidence which justifies my going against the normal rule as laid down in Turner."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Craggs, Re Insolvency Act 1986 [2001] EWCA Civ 1906
23 Nov 2001
CA

Insolvency

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Kansal (2); HL 29-Nov-2001 - Times, 04 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] UKHL 62; [2001] 3 WLR 1562; [2002] 2 AC 69; [2002] 1 All ER 257; [2002] HRLR 9; [2002] BPIR 370; [2002] 1 Cr App R 36
 
Greene King Plc -v- Stanley and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1966; [2002] BPIR 491
30 Nov 2001
CA

Insolvency, Undue Influence
The claimant challenged an order that the two defendant chargors were discharged from liability to the claimants under their individual voluntary arrangement and on the basis that it had been entered under undue influence.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Moore (T/A James Moore Earth Moving) -v- Inland Revenue [2001] NICh 15
5 Dec 2001
ChNI
Girvan J
Northern Ireland, Insolvency
Appeal against conditional setting aside of statutory demand.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Cullen -v- Whinhurst Investments Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1927
7 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant
Applications for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Byatt -v- Browne [2001] EWCA Civ 2070
17 Dec 2001
CA

Insolvency

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Clive Louden Carass Times, 21 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2845; [2002] 1 WLR 1214; [2002] 2 Cr App R 4
19 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Crime, Insolvency, Evidence
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section did not transfer the burden from the prosecution. Held: To justify a transfer of the burden of proof, it had to be shown that this was required, and a persuasive burden rather than an evidential burden was not justified. There was no sufficient threat to society which required a higher burden. The words should be read to require the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence.
Insolvency Act 1986 206 (1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Beck Foods Ltd: Boston Borough Council -v- Richard Rees and Mr Gordon Bennett Times, 15 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1934
20 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Rating, Insolvency
The council appealed a decision that the administrative receivers of a company were not liable personally for the non-domestic rates otherwise incurred by a company during the receivership. Held: The activities of the receiver or manager were not activities creating a ratable occupation. The original business owner remained in occupation for this purpose.
Insolvency Act 1986 35 - Local Government Finance Act 1988 43(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.