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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll