Vieira v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Insolvency Statutory demand. The Chancery Division dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against the deputy registrar's dismissal of his application to set aside a statutory demand, which was based on arrears of assessed income tax, Vat, penalties and surcharges allegedly owed to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, in circumstances where there was a pending appeal, before the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), against the Revenue's assessments in respect of the taxpayer. The court held that the deputy registrar had been correct to hold, in those circumstances, that para 13.3.3 of the Practice Direction: Insolvency Proceedings precluded the Bankruptcy Court from inquiring into the validity of the assessments upon which the statutory demand had been based at that stage.

Abdulla v Whelan (As Trustee in Bankruptcy of Amin) and others

Bankruptcy Disclaimer of onerous property. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the legal interest in an underlease remained in the names of the bankrupt and her joint tenant. It had not been disclaimed by the trustee in bankruptcy when he had served a notice pursuant to of the Insolvency Act 1986, disclaiming all interest in the leasehold property and rent continued to be payable to the landlords.

Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation); Cherkasov and others v Nogotkov (Official Receiver of Dalnyaya Step LLC (in liquidation))

Costs Security for costs. The Chancery Division granted an application by the former general managers of a Russian company for security of costs from the respondent liquidator of the company, in respect of a hearing due to take place in November 2017 to consider their application to set aside a recognition order and to consider the liquidator's application to summon them to court for questioning, under s236 of the . The court held that it had jurisdiction to order security for costs against the respondent in respect of the November hearing because the application, previously brought by the respondent for the recognition order, under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, , was properly described as 'a proceeding', within the meaning of CPR 25.12, and the applicants' application to set aside that order, which was to be heard at the November hearing, was part and parcel of the proceeding or claim that had been commenced by the respondent for the recognition order. An order for security for costs was granted in the sum of 1m.

Davis (As trustee in bankruptcy of Jackson) v Jackson and another

Bankruptcy Trustee in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division ruled in a case concerning the equitable accounting between the parties on the sale of a house, which had been declared in a land registry TR1 transfer form to be held on trust for a husband and wife as joint tenants, and in circumstances where the husband had never lived at, or contributed to, the property and had subsequently been made bankrupt. The court held that to of Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 had not replaced the doctrine of equitable accounting and that the correct apportionment of the proceeds of sale of the property would be to split the net proceeds equally between the trustee and the wife, and then to give the wife additional credit for one half of all the payments she had made under the mortgage(s) from the date the property had been purchased to the date upon which the property was sold. The court further ruled that there should be no credits in respect of other payments which the wife had made, and no debits in respect of her occupation of the property.

*Re Blavo; Blavo v Law Society (acting through the Solicitors Regulation Authority)

Solicitor Intervention by Law Society in solicitor's practice. The Chancery Division ruled on a solicitor's application to set aside statutory demands served by the Law Society in respect of the costs of an intervention into his practice. The solicitor had been, for regulatory purposes, the 'manager' of a company, through which legal services had been provided. The court rejected his contention that the effect of the (the 1985 Act) was that, where a solicitor was a manager of a company, all powers of intervention against the solicitor personally, derived from the (the 1974 Act), had been lost, and, that to that extent, the 1974 Act had been repealed. The court held that, on the true construction of para32(1)(d)(iv) of Sch 2 to the 1985 Act,a manager of a recognised body was capable of having his or her own practice and it was not a ground for setting aside statutory demands. However, the statutory demands were set aside under r6.5(4)(d) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, , because the relevant debts, which were the subject of the statutory demands, were not for liquidated sums.

Re Young; Allen (trustee in bankruptcy of Young) v Young

Bankruptcy Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court held that an agreement, under which the respondent bankrupt had purportedly agreed to deliver up her share of funds from her deceased husband's life insurance policy in consideration of the respondent trustee in bankruptcy paying her a sum from those funds, was contractually binding. However, the court, in dismissing the trustee's application for relief, held that the rule in Re Condon, ex p James[1874-80] All ER Rep 38 applied, such that the trustee should, in the interests of fairness, not insist on his strict legal rights where, to do so, would result in a windfall to the estate of a wholly unjustified nature.

Patterson (trustee in bankruptcy of George Spencer) v Spencer and others

Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the daughter of a bankrupt seeking relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9(1) in order to defend proceedings in which her father's property was being sold to cover the debts. The trial judge had not had before him the case of Denton v TH White Ltd which, when applied, meant that relief from sanctions ought to be granted to the daughter.

Re Dee Valley Group plc

Company Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court, in approving scheme of arrangement proposed by Dee Valley Group plc, considered, among other things, the proper test to be applied to determine if the votes of members at a class meeting were valid. It held, among other things that share splitting undermined the underlying spirit of the dual requirements prescribed by the legislature as pre-condition for scheme approval under the and that the chairman at the class meeting in the present case had been entitled to protect the integrity of that meeting against manipulative practices such as share-splitting that would frustrate its statutory purpose.

*Akers and others v Samba Financial Group

Company Cross-Border insolvency. The Supreme Court allowed Samba Financial Group's appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, setting aside an order of the Chancery Division which had stayed proceedings brought by a Cayman company and its joint liquidators, in which they had contended that transactions, transferring the beneficial ownership of shares in Saudi Arabian companies, by a Saudi Arabian citizen, to a Cayman Islands company, were void dispositions of property, under of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Re Gertner; CFL Finance Ltd v Rubin and others

Insolvency Voluntary arrangement. The Chancery Division allowed the applicant company's application for an order revoking the making of an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) in relation to the financial affairs of the third respondent, R. The court held that the creditors' meeting at which the IVA had been approved had been subject to a material irregularity, in that the vote of one of the creditors should not have been allowed, as it had previously made a settlement agreement with R. An order was made revoking the approval for the IVA.