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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll