Case Summaries

19 December 13

Re Sheridan Millennium Ltd; Curistan v Keenan [2013] NICh 13


(Chancery Division, McCloskey J, 16 September 2013)

The ‘harm' contemplated in paragraph 75 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 is something of tangible detriment to an individual creditor vis-à-vis another creditor, or other creditors.

A creditor applied to challenge the decision of the administrator not to assign the benefit of legal proceedings issued by the company before it went into administration. Although there was a possibility that the non-pursuit of the proceedings could inflict some detriment on the creditor, that possible detriment did not constitute ‘unfair harm' because she would be no worse off than any other creditor or member of the company.

19 December 13


The Guildhall Insolvency Team is pleased to invite you to our 5th annual Insolvency Seminar in Leeds on Thursday 30th January and our 3rd annual seminar in Birmingham on Thursday 6th February. As well as our usual cross-border insolvency update, this year we will be looking at relief from sanction under the post Jackson regime following the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell v News Group, considering when a transaction is a sham and can be set aside, and looking at the equity of exoneration in the modern world and the principles in practice. Both seminars will be followed by complimentary drinks and canapés and a chance to network with the region's top solicitors and Insolvency Practitioners.

Key topics covered:

  • Relief from sanction
  • Sham transactions
  • Equity of exoneration - principles in practice
  • Cross border insolvency update.

For further information, click below to download the brochure, or visit

19 December 13

Maresca v Brookfield Development and Construction Ltd and Pursall [2013] EWHC 3151 (Ch)


(Chancery Division, Norris J, 16 October 2013)

The petitioner and the second respondent, who each held one share in the company, had had a personal relationship which came to an end. The petitioner presented a winding-up petition on the grounds that it was just and equitable that the company be wound up because its affairs had been conducted in a way that was unfairly prejudicial to her or that her relationship with the second respondent that was reflected in the company's constitution was now gone.

The court refused to make a winding-up order on the petition because although it was just and equitable that the company be wound up, the petitioner had an alternative remedy open to her; as a shareholder and director of the company, the petitioner had the right to demand repayment to her of her interest in a directors' loan account, following which she was bound to transfer her shareholding to the second respondent.

19 December 13

Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Ltd and Closegate (Durham No 2) Ltd v Mclean and Others [2013] EWHC 3237 (Ch)

(Chancery Division, Richard Snowden QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge), 25 October 2013)

The directors of a company retain a residuary power to cause the company to bring an application to challenge the appointment of administrators by a qualifying floating charge-holder pursuant to para 14 Sch B1 to the IA 1986. Such authority is not dependent on the provision by the directors of an indemnity for costs.

However, on the facts the qualifying floating charge-holder was not estopped from appointing administrators by indicating that it was open to settlement discussions.

19 December 13

O’Donnell and O’Donnell v the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland [2013] EWCA Civ 956


(Court of Appeal, The Chancellor, 26 June 2013)

Mr and Mrs O'Donnell appealed to the Court of Appeal against orders made by Newey J on 21 December 2012 and 16 March 2013 whereby he dismissed bankruptcy petitions which the O'Donnells had presented to the English Courts on the grounds that their COMI for the purposes of the Insolvency Regulation (1346/2000) was in Ireland, and then refused to vary that order in the light of new evidence adduced by the O'Donnells. Rimer LJ declined to grant permission to appeal on paper. The O'Donnells renewed their application for permission orally before the Chancellor. They relied upon numerous grounds of appeal, including that Newey J had made errors of law and fact in his judgment. The Chancellor rejected all of the arguments put forward by the O'Donnells. He concluded that Newey J had adopted an entirely conventional approach to the law in relation to COMI, and that there was no basis for referring any questions to the CJEU, as the O'Donnells had requested. Permission to appeal was not granted.