This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Caley Wright

Official Receiver v Deuss

Judgment Date: 05 Jul 2021

Third-party costs orders: who is the “real party” on an application for public examination under s.133 Insolvency Act 1986

View case

In The Matter of Transworld Payment Solutions UK Ltd (In Liquidation) Sub Nom Official Reciever v (1) Johannes Christian Martinus Augustinus Marie Deuss (2) Timothy Ulrich (2020)

Judgment Date: 27 Jan 2020

The Insolvency and Companies Court provided guidance on the purpose of applications for public examination under s.133 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the extent of the Court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, the role of the Court on an application for directions and the role that the creditor requesting the examination plays in a disputed application. The Court also determined that the Official Receiver did not have the power to increase the deposit provided by the requesting creditor under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 r.7.101(2). Caley Wright appeared for the requesting creditor.

View case

Burnden Holdings v Fielding (2019)

Judgment Date: 07 Nov 2019

Where a liquidator had taken office in order to pursue a claim against the company's directors at a time when there were no other material assets in the company, and the firm in which he was a partner had funded an early stage of that claim, the firm could not be regarded as a pure funder facilitating access to justice when it came to establishing costs liability after the claim failed. Although the appointment of liquidator was a personal one, his firm stood to gain financially from the liquidator's remuneration and from the uplift it had negotiated. Accordingly, the firm had a sufficient interest in the proceedings to warrant characterisation as a commercial funder and a real party for the purposes of the third-party costs jurisdiction.

View case

Burnden Holdings v Fielding (2019)

Judgment Date: 19 Jun 2019

The High Court considered the liability of the majority directors of an insolvent company in respect of a grant of security to themselves for a loan made by them to the company and in respect of a distribution in specie of the company's shareholding in a subsidiary. The court determined that liability was fault-based (as opposed to strict liability), and considered the statutory requirements in relation to distributions, the degree of detail and formality required of interim accounts, and the duty to consider the interests of creditors.

View case

Cunico Resources NV v Daskalakis ('The 2017 Claim') : Cunico Marketing Fze v Daskalakis ('The 2018 Claim') (2019)

Judgment Date: 18 Jan 2019

The High Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear claims by three companies against their chief executive officer and chief financial officer, because the claims were matters relating to individual contracts of employment under the Lugano Convention 2007 s.5 and the defendants were not domiciled in the UK. It reached that decision even though the defendants were employed by only two of the three claimant companies, by relying on the decisions in Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 723 and Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 828.

View case

(1) Cunico Resources NV (2) Cunico Marketing FZE (3) Feni Industries AD v (1) Konstantinos Daskalakis (2) Arvind Mundhra : Cunico Marketing FZE v (1) Konstantinos Daskalakis (2) Arvind Mundhra (2018)

Judgment Date: 07 Dec 2018

The court commented on the proper construction of CPR r.12.3(1), which provided for the claimant to obtain judgment in default of acknowledgment of service if certain conditions were met. The meaning of r.12.3(1) had been the subject of conflicting first-instance decisions, and it was to be hoped that the Court of Appeal would rule definitively on its construction.

View case

JSC BTA Bank v (1) Mukhtar Ablyazov (2) Madiyar Ablyazov (2018)

Judgment Date: 22 May 2018

In proceedings under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.423 for the recovery of a sum paid as a gift by a former banker to his son, the fact that the banker was aware at the time of the transaction that he was facing claims against his assets did not compel a finding that the transaction was entered into for the prohibited purpose of prejudicing creditors.

View case

M.U.U v Wallace LLP (2018)

Judgment Date: 18 May 2018

A company director who had been sued for legal fees incurred by his company and had been found personally liable to pay those fees, but had then brought a claim in negligence against the solicitors' firm should have raised his complaints about the firm in his defence and counterclaim during the first set of proceedings. The courts would not allow a multiplicity of claims where issues should have been raised and determined in earlier proceedings.

View case

Amt Futures Ltd v (1) Karim Boural (2) Kurt Gruber (3) Gerlinde Kolleger (4) Peter Dietrich (5) Wolfgang Karbstein (2018)

Judgment Date: 12 Apr 2018

On its proper interpretation, a standard form clause in a contract which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts obliged the parties not to begin, or continue, any relevant proceedings in any forum other than the English court. The continuation of proceedings begun elsewhere would, on the face of it, be a continuing breach.

View case

(1) Richard Toone (2) Kevin Murphy v (1) Dean Robbins (2) Richard Robbins (2018)

Judgment Date: 20 Mar 2018

Two company directors were required to repay to joint liquidators payments which they had received from the company which they had failed to demonstrate had been lawfully paid by way of remuneration.

View case

Insol Funding Co Ltd (Claimant) v (1) Sacha Fairfax Cowlam (First Defendant And Part 20 Claimant) (2) Christopher William Cowey (Second Defendant And First Part 20 Defendant) (3) Insol Funding Co Ltd

Judgment Date: 06 Sep 2017

In relation to a property which had been bought in the joint names of the first and second defendants, the first defendant had established the existence of a constructive trust under which she owned an 80% beneficial interest in the property.

View case