header-logo header-logo

30 July 2010
Issue: 7428 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

Picard v FIM Advisers LLP [2010] EWHC 1299 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 216 (Jul) Chancery Division, Companies Court Kitchin J 27 May 2010

Article 21(1)(d) of Sch 1 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, (SI 2006/1030) (the CBIR), had both a jurisdictional and a discretionary component. The court had to be satisfied that the information sought concerned the debtor’s assets, affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities. If it was so satisfied then it had a discretion to order the delivery of that information. In exercising that discretion it had to have regard to all relevant circumstances and ensure that the interests of the person against whom the order was sought were adequately protected.

When considering whether to make an order under Art 21 of Sch 1 to the CBIR, it was appropriate for the court to have regard to the principles upon which the court would exercise its powers under ss 236 and 366 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The relevant principles in such circumstances were:

(i) the power was conferred to enable the office holder to discover

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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