header-logo header-logo

19 February 2010
Issue: 7405 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Insolvency

Irish Reel Productions Ltd v Capitol Films Ltd [2010] EWHC 180 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 111 (Feb)

Rule 2.12(1)(e) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 permitted a person who had presented a winding-up petition to appear at the hearing of an administration application to enable that person to seek an order for the costs of that petition, which would ordinarily be dismissed at the hearing of the administration application, if an administration order was made.

The phrase “the costs … of any person whose costs are allowed by the court” in r 2.12(3) comprehended not merely that person’s costs of appearing at the hearing of an administration application, but that person’s costs of any petition which was dismissed at the same time, where the court thought fit to make such an order. The remaining words of r 2.12(3) then automatically provided for such costs to be payable as an expense of the administration, and to fall within the words in r 2.67(1)(c), namely “the costs of …any person appearing on the hearing of the application…”.
 

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll