0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

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

Business and Property Courts: remote hearings to remain, for now…

For business disputes, it looks likely that remote hearings will be an option into the future.

View blog

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020: update

When CIGA came into force over a year ago it turned the insolvency world on its head. It introduced never-before-seen measures to help companies deal with the immediate impact of the coronavirus pandemic and to provide new corporate restructuring tools to try to help companies survive and prosper.

View blog

Moratoriums

The new Part A1 moratorium was introduced partly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on businesses. The moratorium is not intended to be used to simply delay the inevitable insolvency of a company, but rather to allow breathing space for that company to restructure and/or achieve an effective rescue.

View blog

Covid-19 insolvency measures extension

From 26 March 2021 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 will come into force with the effect of extending several of the temporary measures brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA).

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up