header-logo header-logo

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

Company

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll