header-logo header-logo

25 April 2014
Issue: 7604 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

“Threat of costs recovery” encourages settlement

Ministry of Justice plans to apply the Jackson reforms to insolvency litigation could cost creditors as much as £150m, insolvency practitioners’ group R3 has warned.

Currently, insolvency litigation is exempt from the Jackson reforms. However, this exemption is due to be scrapped in April 2015.

R3 says this will adversely affect creditors since, once Jackson applies, insolvency practitioners will no longer be able to fully recover costs from directors of insolvent businesses and therefore legal action to reclaim money from unscrupulous directors will be unaffordable.

An independent report commissioned by R3, and conducted by Professor Peter Walton of the University of Wolverhampton, found that nearly 89% of the 83% of insolvency cases that settle before court would not do so without the exemption in place.

Phillip Sykes, deputy vice-president of R3, says: “The threat of having costs recovered from them encourages directors to settle before cases reach court. 

“This means lower legal costs, lower insolvency practitioner fees, and higher returns for creditors. Without the threat of recoverable costs, directors know most creditors won’t be able to afford a lengthy court fight to retrieve funds. They will be much less concerned about the ramifications of taking money that isn’t theirs from a business.

“Insolvency litigation returns money to creditors, and helps ensure businesses and banks remain confident about lending. It protects taxpayer funds, it stops directors making off with money that isn’t theirs, and it deters directors from even thinking about doing so in the first place. Should the exemption be removed, only a few large cases involving wealthy, motivated creditors would go ahead. SMEs and taxpayers would lose out—and irresponsible directors would be laughing.”

 

Issue: 7604 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll