header-logo header-logo

Company

03 March 2017
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others; B.A.T. Industries plc v Sequana SA and another [2017] EWHC 211 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 176 (Feb)

The Chancery Division ruled on consequential matters following its main judgment on claims brought against Sequana SA and others, challenging dividend payments. In respect of the second claim, the court held that, in circumstances where the claimant (BAT) had succeeded in part on its claim, under s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (transfers defrauding creditors), it would be wrong to treat an agreement, entered into following the main judgment, as a change of circumstance, which militated against the grant of any relief to BAT, under s 423. Accordingly, BAT was granted relief, under s 423 of the Act, in the form it proposed.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll