header-logo header-logo

Insolvency

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll