LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Growing scrutiny of regulatory oversight has reignited claims that small businesses were exposed to hidden liabilities through complex lending structures, raising significant legal questions around misrepresentation, regulatory accountability, and SME redress.
You have just 18 days to challenge a statutory demand. Act fast, if you have a genuine dispute or legal defence, you may be able to stop bankruptcy proceedings. This succinct guide provides legal guidance from City of London’s specialist insolvency litigation team.
The High Court held that Ronojoy Nag was liable for misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty after diverting company assets during insolvency, while his wife Amanda Nag was found liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt, ordering both to account for misapplied funds.
In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.
The High Court, per Chief ICC Judge Briggs, held that Manolete Partners could not advance misfeasance claims under section 212 Insolvency Act 1986 via an Insolvency Application, and instead had to pursue them under CPR Part 7, ordering payment of the full Part 7 issue fee despite procedural arguments about hybrid claims brought in insolvency proceedings.
The High Court refused Sampson Coward LLP’s application for summary judgment in Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP [2023] EWHC 37 (Ch), allowing a £2 million claim concerning alleged mismanagement of escrow accounts during UK Property and Land Specialists Ltd’s insolvency to proceed. The ruling highlights the complexity of fiduciary breaches in escrow arrangements and confirms assignees’ rights to pursue breach of undertaking claims under the Insolvency Act 1986.
The High Court ordered former director Simon Thacker to repay £33,542.20 after benefiting from the extinguishing of his director’s loan account, which was ruled a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986. In contrast, claims against fellow director David Coleman were dismissed after he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of desire to prefer, despite having received £15,000 shortly before insolvency.
The High Court considered the application of the Braganza duty in a banking litigation context, ruling that the bank breached its procedural fairness obligations when exercising discretionary powers, reinforcing directors’ and financial institutions’ duties under UK law.