header-logo header-logo

INSOLVENCY

14 March 2008
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] All ER (D) 410 (Feb)

The court has jurisdiction to extend the limitation period under s 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 to enable a claimant to bring an action based on breach of duty in respect of a transaction allegedly made to defeat the creditors within the meaning of s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. For s 32(2) to apply:

(i) there must be the deliberate commission of an act;

(ii) that act must amount to a “breach of duty”; and

(iii) that breach of duty must occur in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time.

If those ingredients are satisfied, then the next step (where the claimant relies on s 32(1)(b)) is to go back to s 32(1)(b) and to identify the facts that are involved in the relevant breach of duty.

After that, those facts can be tested against the right of action relied on in the proceedings. There is no need to show that the right of action was for

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll