Skip to main content

Insolvency Disputes

We regularly act for and against Insolvency Practitioners in contentious matters. Our priority is to give pragmatic and commercial advice at all times.

Over the years we have handled a range of insolvency-related issues including claims in respect of unlawful distributions, claims against directors for breach of duty and misfeasance, antecedent transaction claims, wrongful trading claims and retention of title claims.

We have an excellent track-record of recoveries for creditors, and advise regularly on counterparty insolvency in the context of bankruptcies and corporate insolvencies.

On the debtor side we advise directors of distressed companies on risk and duty and, in appropriate cases, we work closely with a trusted network of Insolvency Practitioners to invoke support from the Courts to protect assets and preserve value.

Related items

Related services

Supreme Court decision on professional negligence and loss of chance: Perry v Raleys Solicitors

21 February 2019

The Supreme Court has upheld the appeal of a firm of solicitors defending a professional negligence claim and helpfully reiterated well-established principles about the approach the court must take when considering the issue of causation in loss of chance cases. The decision clarifies what has to be proved in cases where the question for the court depends on what: (a) the claimant would have done (which the claimant must prove to the usual standard ‘on the balance of probabilities’); compared with (b) what others would have done (which are better assessed on a loss of chance basis).

English courts and overseas defendants: jurisdiction challenges and the “three limb” test

06 February 2019

When a dispute involves a foreign party or events that took place in another jurisdiction, questions often arise as to where the dispute should be determined. The forum in which the dispute is determined can make a great deal of difference. It is therefore important for potential litigants to know where they can commence proceedings and whether they can resist claims brought against them in the “wrong” jurisdiction. In a recent case the English Court of Appeal considered the test that will apply when deciding whether to permit a claimant to sue a “foreign” defendant in this jurisdiction.

Dispute Resolution Update - January 2019

16 January 2019

Welcome to our January 2019 Dispute Resolution Update which brings you news and our views on law and practice for dispute resolution. We’ve included articles on domestic disputes and international disputes, including summaries of recent cases. We have also included client guides on key aspects of dispute resolution.

Court of Appeal finds no litigation privilege in internal emails discussing commercial settlement of dispute

09 January 2019

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by West Ham football club in its application to inspect certain emails sent internally amongst board members of E20 Stadium LLP (“E20”) and between E20’s board members and stakeholders, in respect of which E20 asserted litigation privilege. The emails were created with the dominant purpose of discussing the commercial settlement of E20’s dispute with West Ham over the club’s rights to use the London Olympic Stadium when litigation was in contemplation. The Court held that litigation privilege does not extend to documents concerned with the settlement or avoidance of litigation where the documents neither: (a) seek advice or information for the purpose of conducting litigation; nor (b) reveal the nature of such advice or information.

Litigation privilege and the ‘dominant purpose’ test: ENRC decision applied

07 January 2019

Did last year’s landmark Court of Appeal decision in Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (“ENRC”) alter the application of the ‘dominant purpose’ test for litigation privilege where a document is brought into existence for multiple purposes, one of which is for use in litigation? The answer is ‘no’, according to a recent decision by the High Court. The Court confirmed the well-established principle that, for a claim to litigation privilege to succeed where a document is created for more than one purpose, litigation must be shown to be the dominant purpose on the facts.

Encouraging ADR: Civil Justice Council publishes final report

19 December 2018

Back in 2016, the Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) set up an alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) working group to review the ways in which ADR currently is encouraged and positioned within the civil justice system in England and Wales. The terms of reference included the review of existing forms of encouragement for mediation (and other forms of ADR) in civil cases in the Civil Procedure Rules, case law and the powers of the court, to consider alternative forms of encouragement and assess proposals for reform. The Working Group has now published its final report.

Disclosure Pilot Scheme already making an impact as High Court orders list of “issues for disclosure”

12 December 2018

The mandatory Disclosure Pilot Scheme may not start in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales (“BPCs”) until 1 January 2019, but it seems the courts are already taking the new rules into account. In one reported case, the High Court has ordered a separate “list of issues for disclosure”, which will have to be jointly completed by the parties as part of the new Disclosure Review Document required under the Pilot Scheme.

Back To Top