Regulations laid before Parliament yesterday seek to extend the current restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions to 31 December 2020. However, there will inevitably come a time when these temporary restrictions are lifted.
We recently acted for the successful respondent in an appeal against a winding up petition. Arnold Ayoo of 23 Essex Street was instructed.
HHJ Matthews sitting in the Business and Property Court in Bristol gave a full judgment. As well as providing useful procedural guidance, this decision is helpful in confirming that a petition may be founded on a claim for damages and that a creditor does not have to be able to calculate the exact sum due in respect of a debt at the time of presentation, provided that they are able to demonstrate that a debt greater than £750 is owed. Read our insight for more details.
The status of a creditor able to present a petition to wind up a company is not restricted to those who claim to have a debt in the strict sense. The High Court has held that a person who has a claim in damages, even unliquidated, is at least a contingent and perhaps a prospective creditor for the purposes of presenting a winding up petition.
The High Court has dismissed Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Limited’s (the Company) appeal against a winding up order. TLT acted for the successful respondent in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Limited v Raila Langhelle  EWHC 2500 (Ch). The court considered a number of grounds of appeal, two of which will be of particular interest to creditors who may be contemplating presenting a winding up petition.
Winding up petitions against most trading companies are temporarily prohibited, save where the creditor can satisfy the court that (i) Coronavirus did not cause the debtor’s financial difficulties or (ii) the debtor’s financial difficulties would have occurred independently of Coronavirus. This moratorium is currently in place in the United Kingdom until 30 September 2020, and will be extended to 31 December 2020 under regulations laid before Parliament on 24 September 2020.
A petition was presented against the Company by a firm of solicitors. The solicitors subsequently indicated that they wished to withdraw the petition. Another creditor (the Respondent), applied to be, and was substituted as petitioner based on claims that:
The Company opposed the making of the winding up order and directions were given as to the service of further evidence. Ultimately, a winding up order was made on 6 December 2019.
The Company appealed on a number of grounds. Amongst those grounds, the Company alleged that the District Judge had been wrong not to admit three further witness statements as evidence, because they were served in accordance with Rule 7.16 Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the Rules). The Company also argued that the District Judge should not have made a winding up order in respect of the claims made by the Respondent because the precise amounts due were not capable of being ascertained.
HHJ Matthews sitting in the Business and Property Court in Bristol gave a full judgment which sets out useful guidance on the points raised.
Rule 7.16 of the Rules sets out the requirements a company must comply with if it intends to oppose a winding up petition. It requires a witness statement in opposition to be filed with the court and delivered to the petitioner (or their solicitor) not later than five business days before the hearing. The contents of the witness statement must also comply with this Rule. Prior to this case, there were no authorities on the construction of Rule 7.16.
The Company argued that this Rule governed the ability generally of companies to adduce further evidence in a contested winding up petition. The Company had served several further witness statements more than five business days before the winding up hearing; accordingly, it submitted that it had satisfied the procedural requirements and this evidence should have been included for consideration without more.
HHJ Matthews held that Rule 7.16 is concerned with preparation for the first hearing, and does not have a role to play thereafter. Instead, the parties should look to the timetable set out by the Court in directions for the requirements that need to be satisfied. He also provided guidance on the concept of implied sanction, which applies to cases where no express sanction is stated and also to cases where there is no intention to create a sanction but which for policy reasons are treated as analogous to an application for relief from sanctions.
The Company argued that the District Judge should not have made a winding up order in respect of the claims made by the Respondent because the exact amounts due could not be ascertained at the date of presentation of the petition. HHJ Matthews disagreed, and gave the following guidance:
Creditors are currently prevented from presenting a winding up petition unless they can demonstrate that Coronavirus did not cause and did not have an impact on the company’s financial difficulties. However, there will inevitably come a time when these temporary restrictions are lifted. As well as providing useful procedural guidance, this decision is helpful in confirming that a petition may be founded on a claim for damages and that a creditor does not have to be able to calculate the exact sum due in respect of a debt at the time of presentation, provided that they are able to demonstrate that a debt greater than £750 is owed.
TLT provides expert advice in all areas of restructuring and insolvency law and practice. If you would like to discuss any aspect of the issues discussed in this article, please contact a member of our Restructuring & Insolvency team.
This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at September 2020. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.
How will the office of the future work?Read more
Flexible working: the impact on our towns and cities webinarRead more
How will the office of the future work? WebinarRead more
European Commission adopts revamped SCCsRead more
Evolving citiesRead more
Dismissal and re-engagement: refusing Covid changesRead more
Dismissal for health and safety 'friction' automatically unfairRead more
Council wins appeal on sale of former school site landowner's heirs...Read more
TLT forms new partnership to support employee ownership growthRead more
Councils - don't lose the right to charge CILRead more
Employment Law Focus: TechnologyRead more
Personal data transfers to US-hosted CRM tools could be unlawful Post...Read more
The pandemic has forced the majority of the workforce into a world of remote working. As a result, our cities are evolving.Read more
Issues that will impact the sector over the coming months - from future proofing social housing developments to managing offices post pandemic, green finance, and creating connected communities.Read more
Watch our video series for information on the legal issues that are affecting the real estate sector. Each...Read more
Helping you navigate your business through the risks and opportunities that Brexit will bring.Read more
The way people shop is constantly evolving, from the growth of online and the changing use of stores...Read more
The widespread disruption and closure of businesses caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent national and local lockdowns has brought into sharp focus the question of available insurance cover for losses under...Read more
The pandemic has had a deep and long-lasting effect on the leisure, food & drink sector, forcing operators to embrace new ways of attracting and servicing customers.Read more
There's a growing demand for retailers to do more to attract the Purple Pound – the collective spending power of disabled shoppers, estimated to be worth around £274bn. We look at the opportunities, the legal issues and...Read more
Green finance is gaining speed, driven by global climate change pressures and the recognition of the vital role which sustainability plays in a resilient financial services sector.Read more