header-logo header-logo

26 November 2020
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 27 November 2020

Company

Re Taylor Pearson (Construction) Ltd (in administration) [2020] EWHC 2933 (Ch), [2020] All ER (D) 88 (Nov)

The applicant creditors failed in their application, pursuant to paras 74 and/or 75 of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, for the revocation of certain proposals submitted by the administrators which were purported to have been deemed approved. In dismissing the application, the Chancery Division decided that the reasons submitted by the applicants for the revocation of the proposals at issue lacked merit. The court further held that, looking at the position more generally, the administrators had all but completed realising assets and had authority to make a distribution to unsecured creditors and had funds to pay preferential creditors. Accordingly, there was little point in placing the company into liquidation, as proposed by the creditors, even if the earlier findings were wrong.


Competition

AB Volvo (Publ) and others v Ryder Ltd and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1475, [2020] All ER (D) 81 (Nov)

In dismissing the appellants’ appeal, the Court of Appeal,

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll