header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 July 2010
Issue: 7428 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll