header-logo header-logo

25 April 2014
Issue: 7604 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

“Threat of costs recovery” encourages settlement

Ministry of Justice plans to apply the Jackson reforms to insolvency litigation could cost creditors as much as £150m, insolvency practitioners’ group R3 has warned.

Currently, insolvency litigation is exempt from the Jackson reforms. However, this exemption is due to be scrapped in April 2015.

R3 says this will adversely affect creditors since, once Jackson applies, insolvency practitioners will no longer be able to fully recover costs from directors of insolvent businesses and therefore legal action to reclaim money from unscrupulous directors will be unaffordable.

An independent report commissioned by R3, and conducted by Professor Peter Walton of the University of Wolverhampton, found that nearly 89% of the 83% of insolvency cases that settle before court would not do so without the exemption in place.

Phillip Sykes, deputy vice-president of R3, says: “The threat of having costs recovered from them encourages directors to settle before cases reach court. 

“This means lower legal costs, lower insolvency practitioner fees, and higher returns for creditors. Without the threat of recoverable costs, directors know most creditors won’t be able to afford a lengthy court fight to retrieve funds. They will be much less concerned about the ramifications of taking money that isn’t theirs from a business.

“Insolvency litigation returns money to creditors, and helps ensure businesses and banks remain confident about lending. It protects taxpayer funds, it stops directors making off with money that isn’t theirs, and it deters directors from even thinking about doing so in the first place. Should the exemption be removed, only a few large cases involving wealthy, motivated creditors would go ahead. SMEs and taxpayers would lose out—and irresponsible directors would be laughing.”

 

Issue: 7604 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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