0370 270 6000

Insolvency applicants: getting the basics right

15 June 2021

A number of interesting developments have emerged from what was quite a run-of-the-mill insolvency application brought by a litigation funder assignee (Manolete Partners Plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch)).

Firstly, a claim seeking a remedy pursuant to section 423 IA86 (transaction defrauding creditors) is not an insolvency proceeding. Only applications made under Parts I to XI can be brought by insolvency application. Despite the trend to include section 423 in insolvency applications, Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs reluctantly concluded that there is no established practice that can be relied upon to override the rules governing how proceedings should be commenced.

Secondly, the assignee had no standing to make a claim pursuant to section 212(3) IA86 (misfeasance). It was not a creditor or contributory and the office of liquidator cannot be assigned or sold.

In both cases, a Part 7 claim should have been made and the issue fee paid. In this case, the proceedings were allowed to continue subject to a condition requiring the applicant to pay the prevailing Part 7 claim court fee.

As a result of this judgment, an office-holder and assignee of claims will be forced to issue claims arising from an insolvency using different procedures, in different lists within the Business and Property Courts, with the risk that without a transfer they will be case managed, at least, by different judges although the claims arise out of the same facts. Whilst this outcome was reached with regret, it represents strict adherence to the rules which future applicants will be expected to follow. Perhaps there is some hope that, having identified these shortcomings, the rules will be amended to streamline these processes.

Related opinions

The Future of Mediation

In an effort to build a stronger justice system, a shift in priorities has emerged away from adversarial court battles and more towards opportunities for consensual resolution. As one of the most popular forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), mediation has become increasingly encouraged.

View blog

Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.

View blog

Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview

Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.

View blog

Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed

The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up