Company Compulsory winding up. The Chancery Division dismissed the applicant's application for an administration order on the basis that an administration order was not reasonably likely to achieve the purpose of the proposed administration. A compulsory winding up order would be made in respect of Integeral Ltd.
Insolvency Application. The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant administrators seeking, inter alia, damages and-or equitable compensation for losses sustained as a result of negligence and-or breaches of fiduciary duties to the LLP of which the claimants had been members and creditors. The defendants applied to have the claim summarily dismissed. The Chancery Division allowed the application in part, holding that claims not made under paras74 and 75 of to the Insolvency Act 1986 had not been properly made and-or had no real prospect of success.
Practice Stay of proceedings. The Chancery Division considered an application for a stay of proceedings in proceedings concerning the liquidation of a subsidiary of a collapsed Icelandic bank. In refusing to grant the stay, it held that justice would be best served by the continuation of the action, and that the third defendant would be granted permission to bring a counterclaim under CPR pt 20.
Company Administration. Chapters 7 and 7A (CASS 7 and 7A) of the Client Assets Sourcebook section of the Financial Services Authority Handbook created a requirement for investment firms to segregate money received from or held for their clients and hold it on trust for them. In certain circumstances, including the administration or liquidation of the firm, the money held for clients (client money) had to be distributed among the clients, pro rata according to their entitlements. The administrators of a company which carried out business as broker-dealers in financial markets, sought the court's direction as to whether the client's money entitlement in respect of its position was to be valued as at the primary pooling event or by reference to the liquidation value (the hindsight principle). The Chancery Division, Companies Court, held that the hindsight principle was not applicable to the determination of claims to client money for the purposes of a distribution under CASS 7A.
Guarantee Bankruptcy. The Chancery Division considered the claimant's appeal against the court of first instance's refusal to set aside a statutory demand made by the defendant solicitors' firm. Although the standard of proof used by the judge at first instance had been unclear, none of the claimant's arguments demonstrated a triable issue, and therefore the appeal would be dismissed.
Bankruptcy Petition. The Chancery Division, in hearing the bankruptcy petitions of two Irish citizens, held that, despite their move to England, their centre of main interests had been in Ireland at the time that the petitions had been presented. Accordingly, their applications were dismissed.
Guarantee Discharge of guarantee. German and Austrian banks entered guarantees with Barclays. The banks sought the early termination of the guarantees. Barclays refused consent unless the banks paid it five years' fees. It sought declarations that its refusal of consent had been commercially reasonable and that the guarantees had not been terminated. The Commercial Court, in granting the declarations, held that Barclays was acting reasonably in insisting on at least some element of profit.
Company Compulsory winding up. The claimants purchased a yacht from a boat company. They issued a winding-up petition against the company as creditors due to defects in the yacht. The judge struck out the petition on the company's application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the judge had been correct to strike out the petition, as there had been a genuine dispute on substantial grounds with respect to whether the claimants had purchased the yacht as consumers and whether liability had been admitted.
Unfair dismissal Entitlement to compensation. An employment judge refused to review her that an employee had been unfairly dismissed and an award for the period up to the date the employer had gone into administration in the light of new evidence of a transfer of undertaking. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that capping the employee's losses as at the date the employer went into administration had been wrong in light of the new material concerning the transfer.
Bankruptcy Discharge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed an appeal by a trustee in bankruptcy against a judgment dismissing the trustee's application to set aside an order suspending the bankrupt's discharge from bankruptcy. The court held that the judge had fallen into error in concluding that the court had jurisdiction under s279(3) of the to make an order suspending the bankrupt's discharge from bankruptcy for a period of six weeks in order to give him time to place an individual voluntary arrangement proposal before his creditors.