12/11/19
SHINNERS v LONDON TROCADERO (2015) LLP [2019] EWHC 2932 (Ch)
The court considered claims which are provable in insolvency (liabilities arising from obligations incurred before the commencement of liquidation/administration) [26], administration expenses (expenses incurred from obligations entered into by the office holder after the onset of the liquidation/administration) [33], the Lundy Granite principle (that claims arising from pre-liquidation/administration contracts may in certain circumstances be treated as an expense) [38], and the rule against double proof [68]. Lundy Granite can apply to non-provable claims but only applies where common sense and equity dictate that the particular liability should enjoy priority. A tenant’s obligation to top-up a rent deposit was a non-provable debt but was not within the Lundy Granite principle where the rent itself was an expense of the administration.
11/11/19
WOODSIDE v KEYWORKER HOMES (NORTH WEST) LTD [2019] EWHC 3499 (Ch)
An out of court appointment of administrators by company directors was valid. When considering the requirement in para 28(2) of Sch B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that the appointment should not be made after the period of ten business days beginning with the date on which the notice of intention to appoint is filed, the day on which the notice of intention to appoint is filed is to be disregarded (not following on this point Re SJ Henderson & Company, 2019) [33]. A directors’ notice of intention to appoint may validly be filed out of court office hours under the Practice Direction on Electronic Working [35] (not following Re Skeggs Beef Ltd, 2019 on this point [62]). The restriction in para 8.1 of the Insolvency Practice Direction on filing of notices of intention to appoint electronically is to be read as limited to appointments by qualifying charge holders, which continues to be governed by Insolvency Rules 3.20 - 3.22.
7/11/19
WOOD v COMMERCIAL FIRST BUSINESS LTD [2019] EWHC 2205 (Ch)
A mortgage had been properly executed even if the witness who saw the claimant sign the mortgage did not sign in the claimant’s presence [47]. The claimant was entitled to set aside a mortgage loan for non-disclosure of a commission paid to a broker and to payment of the commissions, subject to counter-restitution. The court examined principles to be applied when a commission is fully secret or half secret.
1/11/19
LONESTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORP LLC v KAYE [2019] EWHC 3008 (Comm)
Considers whether the circumstances of the case were sufficiently exceptional to dispense with service of a claim form on the defendant under CPR r 16.6.