A summary of key legal updates in the Insolvency and Restructuring industry over the past month is as follows.
Quincecare duty redefined – Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC
The Quincecare duty has engaged the Supreme Court three times in the last six years. In Philipp v Barclays, the issue was whether the duty could extend beyond what has been referred to as the ‘internal fraud paradigm’ or the role of the trusted agent, and apply to a push payment fraud authorised directly by the bank’s customer. Click here to read the full article.
King v Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund
This decision explores the circumstances in which a statutory demand may be set aside. The Kings advanced various grounds in an attempt to set aside the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund’s demand, including a “cross demand” and an argument that bankruptcy would serve no useful purpose (as they had no money or substantial assets). But perhaps most interesting was whether a demand based on an interim costs award pending detailed assessment was in fact a liquidated debt. The judge resolved any lingering question on this latter point with textbook clarity. Click here to read the full article.
Hunt v Singh appeal
In a thoughtful and nuanced appeal judgment in which the Liquidator successfully appealed dismissal at trial of his claim, Zacaroli J considers the creditor duty post Sequana. Click here to read the full article.