header-logo header-logo

INSOLVENCY

14 March 2008
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] All ER (D) 410 (Feb)

The court has jurisdiction to extend the limitation period under s 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 to enable a claimant to bring an action based on breach of duty in respect of a transaction allegedly made to defeat the creditors within the meaning of s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. For s 32(2) to apply:

(i) there must be the deliberate commission of an act;

(ii) that act must amount to a “breach of duty”; and

(iii) that breach of duty must occur in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time.

If those ingredients are satisfied, then the next step (where the claimant relies on s 32(1)(b)) is to go back to s 32(1)(b) and to identify the facts that are involved in the relevant breach of duty.

After that, those facts can be tested against the right of action relied on in the proceedings. There is no need to show that the right of action was for a breach of duty. All that it is necessary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll