header-logo header-logo

Insolvency

12 April 2013
Issue: 7555 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Sinclair v Glatt and others [2013] EWCA Civ 241, [2013] All ER (D) 295 (Mar)

It was settled law that receivers appointed under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988) were officers of the court and subject to the supervision of the court. Receivers so appointed generally acted in accordance with the common law, save to the extent that CJA 1988 stipulated otherwise. It was an established common law principle that such a receiver ordinarily was entitled to look to the assets of the receivership estate to indemnify him for his remuneration, costs and expenses, and might have a lien over such assets for that purpose. Further, the right to an indemnity was not extinguished by discharge of the receivership order and the lien could continue to exist for that purpose after discharge. In addition, where a receivership order made under CJA 1988 was discharged, the receiver continued to be an officer of the court to the extent that he still had functions to perform with a view to a final conclusion of the administration of the receivership.

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll