The Cork Lawyers - some further findings on the Cork family and insolvency law

In a previous blog entry on the 'Cork Dynasty' I discussed the four generations of Cork men that have been involved in insolvency practice as accountants, namely, WH Cork, Sir Kenneth Cork, Sir Roger Cork, and Mr Stephen Cork. It has now come to my attention that there were a number of Cork family members that practiced not as accountants, but as lawyers. This legal branch of the Cork family also had close connections with insolvency law and the City of London. I am grateful to Mr Colin Cork for the following information.

 

WH Cork, had three sons. The eldest was, Leslie Cork, and then came Norman and Kenneth. Rather than follow his father, Leslie Cork decided to enter the legal profession as a solicitor and after qualifying joined Herbert Oppenheimer, Nathan & Vandyk (HONV), a City firm of solicitors, later becoming the first partner to be made after the founders of the firm. As Roger followed his father into the accountancy profession, Colin Cork followed his father into the legal profession. After serving articles with Herbert Smith, Colin Cork joined HONV where his father (Leslie Cork) was now Senior Partner and HONV had grown to one of the larger firms in the City counting Plessey, Sainsburys and Sea Containers among its clients. There was another Cork in the City and that was Leslie Cork's son (Colin Cork's younger brother), Malcolm Cork.

 

Malcolm left school at an early age and, after being made redundant from his first job, his uncle, Kenneth, invited him to go and work at WH Cork Gully & Co until he found another job. However, he stayed there and that is where his insolvency career started although he never became a qualified chartered accountant like Kenneth and Roger. He was more in the mold of his uncle, Norman. Later on, Malcolm decided to pursue his career elsewhere and joined Grant Thornton (GT)'s insolvency department, for a time being based in Bristol. He then left GT and joined Booth White, a small specialist insolvency firm in the City. It was about this time that Roger had left Coopers & Lybrand and joined Moore Stephens. Later on, through Roger and Malcolm, Moore Stephens' insolvency department was merged with Booth White under the initial name of Moore Stephens Booth White. Malcolm retired just over a year ago although he still retains a number of contacts with the City.

 

Leslie Cork was Master of The Gold and Silver Wyre Drawers, a City livery company. His son, Colin Cork is still a member. Both Leslie and Colin worked closely with Cork Gully on the legal aspects of insolvency cases.

Picture Credit: http://www.gswd.co.uk/images/crest2.gif

Why do we want to punish debtors?

In the June issue of the American magazine The Atlantic Monthly, there was a fascinating article by Megan McArdle about the American society's frequent desire to punish bankrupts. I just spent a few months writing a paper on capital punishment for fraudulent bankruptcy in England pre-1820, and the continuity between the angry demands of 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th-century English parliamentaries and writers on debt that bankrupts should be punished with the same angry demands by the American senators debating the 2005 bankruptcy code amendments is stunning, especially given how radically the bankruptcy laws have changed in those centuries. There are, of course, a few problems with such calls for vengeance. For one thing, as the English discovered during the 108-year period when fraudulent bankruptcy was a capital offense, dead bankrupts don't pay back their debts. And punishing bankruptcy is not like punishing murder, with which bankruptcy was for several centuries actually equated, because retribution should have no role to play. Furthermore, as McArdle points out, punishing debtors is not economically efficient. Yet, for centuries, creditors were willing to put aside their economic self interest in order to imprison, hang, and otherwise see their debtors suffer. We might think that we have gotten beyond that stage now that we have generous bankruptcy systems that give the debtor so many advantages in order to try to help him get back on his feet. But something about the idea of a person borrowing money and being able to get away with not paying it back still stirs up rather primal emotions, much as violent crime does.

CVAs in vogue as the consultation period nears

The Guardian newspaper has reported an interesting story on the FOCUS chain of DIY stores, particularly in relation to CVAs. The story is entitled 'Focus DIY in insolvency deal to save 5,000 jobs - Cheshire-based chain needs 75% of creditors to back plan' and notes:

"Creditors of the retail chain Focus DIY are expected tomorrow to approve a company voluntary arrangement (CVA), an insolvency process that will save the retailer from administration and protect 5,000 jobs.

The Cheshire-based chain needs 75% of creditors – mostly landlords – to back a plan put together by the accounting firm BDO Stoy Hayward.

Under the proposal, Focus would drop the leases of its 38 closed stores, worth an annual £12m in rent, and in return offer landlords, including British Land, Land Securities and Aviva, a share of a £3.7m compensation pot, as well as further rate payments linked to the empty stores, a package worth about £6m.

"While the payout is less than the lease values, it's more than they would get if the firm went under," said the British Property Federation, representing the landlords.

Focus also wants the landlords of its 180 trading stores to accept monthly rather than quarterly rent payments until March 2011. The process would also see Focus's lenders – Lloyds Banking Group's HBOS and GMAC – provide a two-year extension to the firm's £50m revolving credit facility, due at the end of this year.

Focus, bought by the US private equity firm Cerberus in 2007 from its rivals Apax Partners and Duke Street, has been struggling for years amid a heavy debt mountain and dwindling sales. If the CVA fails, Focus could enter into a pre-pack administration, where receivers bundle the profitable parts of the company into a new business and sell it a process that usually leaves some creditors, such as landlords, without payment.

"You cannot blame landlords for the failure of their tenants, but at the same time our members are leading the way in changing the face of the industry," said Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation. "It's a sad fact that some shops have been hit by the rise of the internet and impact of recession and are not going to return to business levels you will only ever see in a boom."

A CVA process also saved JJB, the beleaguered sports retailer, from administration earlier this year. A CVA is a legal procedure in which a company reaches a deal with its creditors about the outstanding debt.

The agreement allows the company to avoid administration, a process that usually drives customers away because of its bad publicity and the presence of administrators, who take over the management of the company. Under a CVA, management run the business and also continue trading. Administration processes also usually lead to job cuts.

"We are starting to see more options available to companies, be that from banks or creditors agreeing to compromise through a CVA," said KPMG restructuring partner Brian Green. "We predict the next two years will be incredibly busy as restructuring professionals pick through the financial knots of thousands of companies in distress.""

Picture Credit: http://www.keltruck.com/Images/Focus%20DIY%2001_tcm173-73522.JPG

HOBS: the 'Cave Orders' in bankruptcy and Mr Justice Cave, Sir Lewis William Cave (1832-1897)

In a previous blog entry I mentioned the Viscount Cave, Lord Chancellor. For many years the 'Cave Orders' were a feature of the bankruptcy laws, particularly under the Bankruptcy Acts 1883 and 1914. Viscount Cave was not however the progenitor of these orders. The man responsible was Sir Lewis William Cave (1832–1897 - pictured), the Queen's Bench division judge. The 'Cave Orders' viz the Order of Mr Justice Cave dated January 1 1884, as amended by the same Judge's regulations of March 25 1885 make directions in relation to the office of Bankruptcy Registrars. 

Cave was educated at Rugby School and Lincoln College, Oxford. He graduated BA  (1855) and MA (1877) whereupon he entered the Inner Temple as a student. He was called to the bar on 10 June 1859. He became a bencher on 15 June 1877 following his appointment as Queen's counsel on the 28 June 1875. He became a justice of the High Court, Queen's Bench Division on the 14 March 1881, and  was knighted. His biographer notes that he was: 

"Burly in person and bluff in manner, he had a businesslike approach which shortened his cases. He seized points very rapidly, and frequently cut short argument with sharp questions of counsel, such as: ‘That won't do, you know. Have you anything else?’ or ‘What do you say to that?’ He was as competent in criminal as in civil cases." 

In relation to the bankruptcy jurisdiction it is noted that "His knowledge of business made him an especially good bankruptcy judge in the Queen's Bench Division under the act of 1883. Had he retired when he resigned the bankruptcy jurisdiction in 1891, his reputation would have remained high. His vigour flagged thereafter, however, and signs of decay were plain for some time before his death of paralysis at his home... on 10 September."

So what was the substance of the 'Cave Orders'? These can be examined in depth in the nineteenth edition of Williams on Bankruptcy at pages 782 to 784. A brief flavour will be given here:

"1. The Registrars in Bankruptcy of the High Court to hear and determine the following matters and applications which by the Rules are directed to be heard and determined in open court:

(a) The public examination of debtors;

(b) Applications to approve a composition of scheme of arrangement;

(c) Applications for orders of discharge or certificates of removal of disqualifications."

Picture Credit: http: Vanity Fair.

A Letter on Administration to the Insolvency Service as reported by the Guardian

The Guardian newspaper has published a very interesting piece that will be of note to those interested in insolvency law reform. The piece is entitled "Insolvency Service urged to change payment rules for administrations - Confusion reigns over who pays for what during company administrations" and notes:

"The Bank of England's financial markets law committee has urged the Insolvency Service to change regulations over administrations in order to avoid uncertainy, including that of Lehman Brothers.

In a letter to Stephen Leinster, director of policy at the Insolvency Service, the FMLC urged regulators to change the present insolvency law, especially the rules relating to administration liabilities.

"It appears to the members of the FMLC that the issues of legal uncertainty … have materially affected market participants in their dealings with Lehman Brothers International (Europe) after its collapse and that this offers direct evidence of the need for these issues to be addressed," wrote Joanna Perkin, FMLC secretary.

Financial institutions, mostly hedge funds, which held $14bn of assets at Lehman, have opposed plans under which they would help pay for the long administration process. Under a proposal, the Lehman administrator, PricewaterhouseCoopers, as well as the lawyers involved and the about 500 Lehman staff , would receive some of their payment from the claimants.

"Because a significant part of the work being done … relates to the return of assets, the proposal is that an element of that cost is applied to the people who will benefit," said PWC administrator Tony Lomas. "If the people whose assets are tied up in the company do not pay for that work, the administrator would question what work he would do because the cost would fall on the unsecured creditors who derive no benefit."

Under the law, parties involved in an administration are paid from the company's assets, before the rest of the money goes to creditors. However, hedge funds argue that it would be unusual for a company to pay for the administration process out of a business's proprietary holdings, instead of its estate."

Picture Credit: http://www.spkweb.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/816B8AFA-BB35-47B9-888F-99E4904F6564/10302/9.jpg

HOBS: Poulson (4) - The Bar Council Investigation of Mr Muir Hunter QC's conduct

One of the most interesting elements of the Poulson affair relates to the Government’s reaction to the revelations that were coming out of the Wakefield County court as a result of Poulson’s public examination. A growing sense of indignation manifested by the political establishment seems to have resulted in the then Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson (as he then was, he was subsequently enobled as Lord Rawlinson) getting involved in the Poulson case. The President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General appeared, represented by counsel, in the Wakefield County Court, without prior warning. This is a grave breach of professional etiquette. They were there to demand that the public examination of Poulson should be stopped on the grounds of “public interest”. However, despite the eminence of the applicants, the presiding registrar, Mr Registrar Garside, summarily refused the applications, and directed the examination to continue.

Some powerful enemies among the establishment had clearly been made, among people implicated by Poulson’s evidence, and their political colleagues and friends, and in particular within the Cabinet itself, as a result of the fall of Reginald Maudling. But does this account for what followed next?

The Attorney-General reported Hunter, the leading bankruptcy Queen’s Counsel of the day, to the Bar Council for professional misconduct. The obvious consequence of this move would be to curtail the public examination, at least by Hunter. Hunter was represented at the hearing by Sir Derek Walker-Smith QC, subsequently Lord Broxbourne QC (13 April 1910 – 22 January 1992) the senior Conservative Party politician (and barrister!). The Lord Broxbourne was, like Hunter, a graduate of Christ Church, Oxford. The complaint to the Bar Council was dismissed within short order. This episode did not however prevent Hunter from becoming soon afterwards a Bencher at Gray's Inn. 

Picture Credit: Cookson, Evening News, Friday, February 2, 1973. 

Butters & Ors v BBC Worldwide Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1954 (Ch) (20 August 2009) - Insolvency Event

Mr Justice Peter Smith (pictured) has handed down his judgment in Butters & Ors v BBC Worldwide Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1954 (Ch) (20 August 2009). The case contains a number of interesting points on what constitutes an "insolvency event" and Mr Justice Peter Smith's definition of insolvency:  

"A company becomes insolvent if it fails to satisfy one of the two tests set out in section 123 IA 1986, namely that it is unable to pay its debts after service of statutory demand or alternatively it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities ("balance sheet insolvency"). Following the onset of insolvency a company is then wound up either voluntarily or compulsorily. For the company to be wound up voluntarily generally it requires a special resolution by the company. If that happens the voluntary winding up is to commence on the date of that resolution. In the case of a compulsory winding up by order of the Court the winding up relates back to the date of the presentation of the petition unless a voluntary resolution has been passed in which case the winding up relates back to the passing of that resolution (section 129 IA 1986). In the case of an administration the company must be insolvent before it can go into administration and the administration takes effect either when the order of the Court is made or (more usually) when the conditions of the Notice of appointment are satisfied."

Picture Credit: http://www.stevencarrigan.com/blog/uploaded_images/peter-smith-757325.jpg

HOBS: Poulson (3) - The Legal Teams and the presiding Registrar

The Trustee in Bankruptcy's legal team in the Poulson affair featured some of the great names of the insolvency bar of the day. Leading the team was Mr Muir Hunter QC (pictured left). Muir Hunter at the beginning of the proceedings was almost 60 and had been the leading bankruptcy practitioner at the bar for more than twenty-five years. As editor of the standard work on the subject his knowledge of insolvency practice was at the time unrivaled; He had been counsel to the Board of Trade in Bankruptcy matters whilst also appearing in quite a few important bankruptcy cases including Bendall v. McWhirter [1952] 2 Q.B. 466, which helped to lay the foundations for the concept of the deserted wife's equity in the matrimonial home. The Trustee in Bankruptcy in that case, Bendall, was the leading partner in Poppleton and Appleby; his closest colleague in the firm was John Priestly, who himself became Poulson's Trustee in Bankruptcy. 

David Graham (pictured right) was Muir Hunter's junior in the Poulson case. Born and educated in Leeds the Poulson case brought him back to home territory. By then he was becoming well-known as an insolvency practitioner having become Muir Hunter's devil in 1958 and working with him on the eighteenth edition of Williams, published in 1968. Throughout the case David worked closely with Desmond Simpson whose firm, RC Moorehouse & Co, acted as solicitors to the Trustee in Bankruptcy. The firm's offices were conveniently situated directly opposite those of the Official Receiver in Leeds; much of David's time was spent in the basement of the Official Receiver's office examining the voluminous amount of papers that had been taken over from Poulson's practice in Wakefield. 

At that time Michael Crystal, also a Leodiensian, was David Graham's pupil and had a watching brief in the case. 

Registrar Garside presided over the case. He was the registrar of the Wakefield and Barnsely county courts. He was a solicitor by training. His handling of such a complex and high profile case, much of which took place in public, must have been extremely burdensome and yet counsel involved in the case thought that he handled the case with great expertise and firmness. 

Poulson's solicitor and advocate in court was Leonard Saffman. He, also, was an extremely well-known and respected solicitor in Leeds whose firm did insolvency work. He was a respected and formidable opponent. 

Picture Credit: Hunter Collection at the Muir Hunter Museum of Bankruptcy, KU.

Bankruptcy Tourism revisited - 'Bankruptcy tourists' exploit UK's lenient insolvency laws says Accountancy Age

Accountancy Age has published an interesting article on bankruptcy tourism. The story notes:

"Foreign nationals are travelling to the UK as ‘insolvency tourists’ seeking to become bankrupt under English law because procedures in Britain last 12 months instead of up to nine years on the continent.

Experts have seen a surge in enquiries from Germany and France relating to individuals wanting to use UK bankruptcy procedure.

In Germany, companies have even been launched to assist people coming to the UK.

Insolvenz Agentur advertises on its website with the phrase: ‘Get rid of the rest of your debts in England after just 12 months.’

It goes on to say: ‘We are supporting your way out of the debt trap,’ and: ‘After you have got rid of your debts you can decide if you then want to stay.’

Insolvenz assistance relates to helping German nationals demonstrate they have been resident and paid taxes in the UK for at least six months so they can take advantage of the much more lenient bankruptcy conditions.

Marcus Kray, a UK-based consultant at the German assisted bankruptcy business, said: ‘I think it is right what we are doing.’

‘It is much easier and gives people a second chance at life and the ability to get a better job.’

Mark Sands, national head of bankruptcy at Tenon, said: ‘I don’t think the system was designed to allow Germans to come here and bankrupt themselves.’

Neil Smyth, a partner at European law firm Taylor Wessing, said: ‘If you are a permanent resident or work here then fine. But, if you fly in and stay in a place for a few weeks just to get a bankruptcy and have no intention of being a permanent

resident, then that is an abuse of the system.’

The Insolvency Service is monitoring bankruptcy applications from abroad but said it would not be taking any special action.

A spokesman said the service had so far recorded 59 applications where their legitimacy was not clear because of where the bulk of assets were held. Two thirds of those applications were rejected. ‘If figures are as miniscule as they are, it won’t touch the radar,’ the spokesman added.

Kray said up to 85% of Germans decided to stay in the UK post discharge and the average age of his clients is between 43 and 45 years old.

He said his client base had doubled over the last year to more than 100 doctors, dentists and other professions seeking a much shorter bankruptcy process.

Debts among his clients range from €80,000 (£68,000) to €4m.

Under current English laws, a foreign national generally has to prove their centre of interest (COI) is in the UK for at least three months to succeed in bankruptcy

proceedings.

This means they need to have paid taxes, lived or worked in the UK, as well as have a bank account and doctor.

For the German government to recognise the bankruptcy, a person needs to show six months proof of COI."

Picture Credit: http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2248123/bankruptcy-tourists-exploit-uk

HOBS: Poulson (2) - The Combatants in Pictures

Here are the two chief protagonists in the Poulson affair, Mr Muir Hunter QC (as he then was) and Mr John Garlick Llewellyn Poulson, as artistically rendered for a Sunday Times  treatment of September 24 1972. Their exchange went:

"MH: "now, it is plain, is it not, Mr Poulson, that you are a man with an immensely generous heart: is that not right?"

JGLP: "I used to think so. I think now, when I see these figures, 'stupid' would describe it."

MH: "Yes, stupidly generous. So the situation was this, was it not, that you were prepared to lash out large permanent regular sums to your old chums?"

JGLP: "I didn't know they were old chums: some of them I had never even met"

Picture Credit: Sunday Times.

Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports - [2009] BPIR 737-972 Number 4

A number of interesting judgments have been selected for inclusion in the latest edition of the BPIRs by the editors (Paul French, Jonathan Middleton and Professor David Milman), a number of which have been mentioned on this blog previously. The cases reported in the latest edition of Jordan's BPIR, include:

"[2009] BPIR 737 

Bateman and Another v Hyde and Others [2009] EWHC 81 (Ch) 

ChD, His Honour Judge Pelling QC sitting as a High Court judge, 6 February 2009 

- BANKRUPTCY - Post-petition disposition - Transfer and re-mortgage - Extent to which disposition by the bankrupt - Extent to which disposition void - Insolvency Act 1986, ss 284(1), (6) 

- BANKRUPTCY - Post-petition disposition - Transfer and re-mortgage - Applicability of overreaching - Extent to which mortgagee entitled to subrogation - Law of Property Act 1925, s 27, Land Registration Act 2008, s 86 

[2009] BPIR 748 

Bateman v Williams and Another 

Wrexham CC, His Honour Judge Jarman QC, 26 November 2008 

- BANKRUPTCY - Family home - Sale and possession - Exoneration - Insolvency Act 1986, s 323 

[2009] BPIR 762 

The Charit-Email Technology Partnership LLP v Vermillion International Investments Ltd [2009] EWHC 388 (Ch) 

ChD, Sir Andrew Morritt Chancellor of the High Court, 13 February 2009 

- WINDING-UP PETITION PROCEDURES - Whether contributory can appear on hearing of petition where no surplus likely 

- LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS (LLPS) - Whether established practice for determining right to appear on petitions for winding up of companies applied to LLPs 

Contributories - Determination of status 

[2009] BPIR 769 

C Putnam & Sons v Taylor and Another [2009] EWHC 317 (Ch) 

ChD, His Honour Judge Purle QC, 29 January 2009 

- CHARGING ORDER - Family home - Sale and possession - Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, ss 14 and 15 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 

[2009] BPIR 778 

Dennis Rye Ltd v Bolsover District Council [2009] EWCA Civ 372 

CA, Mummery and Elias LJJ, 6 May 2009 

- Winding-up petition - Disputed debt - Cross claim - Whether cross claim genuine and serious 

- WINDING-UP PETITION - Unpaid council tax - Liability order - Extent to which Companies Court will look behind liability order 

[2009] BPIR 785 

Haghighat (A Bankrupt) (No 2), Re [2009] EWHC 934 (Ch) 

ChD, George Bompas QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, 28 April 2009 

- BANKRUPTCY - Family home - Order for possession - Review of possession order - Insolvency Act 1986, s 375 

[2009] BPIR 810 

Hunt v Yearwood-Grazette [2009] EWHC 2112 (Ch) 

ChD, Proudman J, 7 April 2009 

- TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY - Determination of fees claim - Time costs - Importance of value for money 

[2009] BPIR 820 

Lewis and Lewis v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 448 

CA, Laws and Thomas LJJ and Mann J, 12 June 2009 

- BANKRUPTCY - Dwelling house - Realisation of interest in dwelling house by a trustee in bankruptcy - Meaning of 'realises' - Insolvency Act 1986, s 283A 

[2009] BPIR 834 

Marsh (In Bankruptcy), Re, Casey v Whitworth 

Portsmouth CC, District Judge Cawood, 22nd August 2008 

- BANKRUPTCY - Transaction at an undervalue - Valuation of consideration - Money or money's worth - Whether transaction at significant undervalue - Insolvency Act 1986, s 339 

- BANKRUPTCY - Transaction at an undervalue - Relevant time - Insolvency - Whether individual insolvent at time of or as a result of the transaction - Insolvency Act 1986, s 341 

[2009] BPIR 854 

Nolan v Wright [2009] EWHC 305 (Ch) 

ChD, His Honour Judge Hodge QC sitting as a High Court judge, 26 February 2009 

- EXTORTIONATE CREDIT BARGAIN - Reopening extortionate credit bargain - Limitation - Limitation Act 1980, ss 8 and 9 

[2009] BPIR 870 

Qayyum v Hameed and Another [2009] EWCA Civ 352 

CA, Pill, Moore-Bick and Etherton LJJ, 27 April 2009 

- BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN PROPERTY - Identification and variation of beneficial interests - Constructive trust - Innocent misrepresentation - Rescission 

[2009] BPIR 882 

R (Mohammed) v The London Borough of Southwark [2009] EWHC 311 (Admin) 

QBD, Geraldine Andrews QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge, 24 February 2009 

- BANKRUPTCY - Council tax - Liability to pay as at date of bankruptcy order - Nature of council tax liability - Extent of bankruptcy debt - Ability of council to seek liability order for pre- and post-bankruptcy council tax - Insolvency Act 1986, s 285 

[2009] BPIR 892 

Rayden and Another v Edwardo Ltd and Another [2008] EWHC 2689 (Comm) 

QBD, Gloster J, DBE, 5 November 2008 

- WINDING UP - Solvent companies - Application of mandatory set-off rule in the Insolvency Rules 1986, r 4.90 

- SET OFF - Application of Insolvency Rules 1986, r 4.90 to solvent liquidations 

- GUARANTEES - Primary obligations of guarantor 

- RESCISSION - Where right to rescission may be lost - Affirmation - Restitutio in integrum 

[2009] BPIR 909 

Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Howe[2009] EWCA Civ 280 

CA, Rix, Toulson and Rimer LJJ, 2 April 2009 

- REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS - Claim by director/ controlling shareholder of insolvent company against National Insurance Fund - Whether claimant an employee - Factors to be taken into account 

[2009] BPIR 945 

Shaw v Doleman [2009] EWCA Civ 279 

CA, Mummery, Stanley Burnton and Elias LJJ, 1 April 2009 

- LEASES - Assignment of lease - Disclaimer of lease by liquidator of assignee of lease - Unpaid rent - Liability of original guarantor of lease 

- LANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS) ACT 1995 - Impact upon assigning tenants who act as guarantors 

[2009] BPIR 958 

Sinclair v Glatt and Others [2009] EWCA Civ 176 

CA, Longmore, Stanley Burnton, and Elias LJJ, 13 March 2009 

- RECEIVER - Appointment by court - Remuneration, costs and expenses - Meaning of realisable property - Whether receiver to have recourse to assets beneficially owned by others for purposes of meeting receivership remuneration, costs and expenses - Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss 71, 74, 80, 88, 89, 102."

Picture Credit: Jordans Publishing Ltd