Dispute Resolution

Daniel Staunton explores the inherent conflict between the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts and the family courts and asks which jurisdiction trumps the other? This article focusses on the authorities in relation to section 284 and when family court orders might be liable to be set aside as void dispositions

Mary Young explores how divorce settlements between spouses may be caught later down the line in bankruptcy proceedings as potential TUVs where there are dishonest motives.

What often happens when the insolvency courts and family courts collide; the potential effect a bankruptcy order of one spouse can have on a financial order made in favour of the non-bankrupt spouse and the different tests of each court.

 Financial abuse of older and vulnerable adults is sadly becoming more prevalent

This quarterly media and reputation management update provides a summary of a cross-section of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period January to March 2021.

My previous blog examined whether Kenny Goss, the ex-partner of George Michael, may be entitled to a provision from the late singer’s estate, notwithstanding the fact that their relationship had broken down in 2009 (seven years prior to Mr Michael’s death). It was reported at the time that Mr Goss was seeking an award of £15,000 per month on the basis that Mr Michael had been financially maintaining Mr Goss at the time of his death. Pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Mr Goss made an application for reasonable financial provision from Mr Michael’s estate because he had not been left anything in the singer’s will.

In the case of KOZA LTD and HAMDI IPEK –v- KOZA ALTIN IŞLETMELERI AS [2021] EWHC 786 (Ch), Mr Justice Trower awarded an injunction restraining Mr Ipek, Koza Ltd (“KL”)’s sole director, from causing KL to use its funds to pay legal costs in the litigation, which was in reality a shareholder dispute between Mr Ipek and Koza Altin Işletmeleri AS (“KAI”).  The decision upholds the ‘legal costs principle’ in company disputes, which provides that a company’s money should not be spent on disputes between shareholders.

In the recent case of TMG Brokers Ltd (In Liquidation) (also known as: Baker v Staines) the High Court held a director of a company to be jointly and severally liable for payments made by his co-director out of the company’s bank account which were made without proper authority and amounted to  disguised distributions of capital. The fact that he had placed trust in the other director for the company's financial affairs did not excuse him from performing his duties.

In recent years the courts have seen a significant number of claims under the 1975 Act bought by adult children. This week it has been widely reported that the two adult daughters of Tony Shearer, a high profile banker and finance governor of a well-known public school, have failed in their attempt to bring a claim against their late father’s £2.2 million estate. Mr Shearer made no provision in his estate for his daughters leaving the majority of his wealth to his second wife.

A Civil Fraud quarterly round-up (1st quarter 2021)

Examining the impact of Sofer v Swiss Independent Trustees SA on practitioners in England and Wales. 

This article was first published by STEP, December 2020: Katherine Pymont, 'Moments of Truth', Trust Quarterly Review (Vol18 Iss4), pp.36-41

Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, 2020 was an incredible year for crypto assets.  Largely driven by the increased demand from institutional investors, Bitcoin shattered its previous price records. However, its pseudonymous nature and the ease with which it allows users to instantly send funds anywhere in the world makes crypto assets appealing to criminals.

What happens when a director commits fraud by misappropriating company assets?  Or what of the director who continues trading knowing that the company has no realistic prospect of paying its debts as and when they fall due? To whom does a director owe duties at that point and what recourse is there against that director? This article explores these questions.

We have previously examined how the Government’s Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Schemes (the Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS), Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) and Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS)(together the “Schemes”) work. A report issued by the Public Accounts Committee on 10 December 2020 highlights the darker side of the Schemes and what it is costing the UK taxpayer. 

This article will focus on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom’s (HMRC’s) “gambit” to gain an advantage over other creditors through the return of the “crown preference” from 1 December 2020. This article explores what HMRC’s status as a secondary preferential creditor means and its implications for insolvency practitioners and others going forward.

This quarterly media and reputation management update provides a summary of a cross-section of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period October to December 2020.

Two recent decisions relating to forged wills have highlighted what evidence will be sufficient for a court to make a finding of forgery.

When an individual instructs a solicitor, they may research and make various enquiries to establish which solicitor is best suited to their matter, seeking to find an expert in that field. Solicitors frequently instruct barristers (counsel) as part of their client’s legal team to provide advocacy and additional expertise. Solicitors often rely on advice from counsel when advising clients. Whilst a solicitor is entitled to rely on counsel’s advice, and the more specialist the nature of the advice the more reasonable reliance will be, in doing so they need to properly consider that advice rather than simply accepting the advice without further scrutiny.

Usually, the scope of duty of care between a solicitor and a client will be set out in writing in an engagement letter, but there are some circumstances in which a solicitor may assume duties to someone other than their client, which can create problems if that party is to suffer a loss. In those circumstances, a key question is whether a solicitor owes the third party a duty of care.

This quarterly contentious trust and probate litigation update provides a summary of a cross-section of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period October 2020 - December 2020.