Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 MAY 2017

No Intention? No Notice!

Reed Smith (Worldwide)
Explore more from Reed Smith (Worldwide)

In a judgment that will undoubtedly impact what has become fairly common practice when filing notices of intention to appoint an administrator ("NOITA"), the Court of Appeal has held in JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd that a company seeking to give notice of intention to appoint under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986

United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Charlotte Møller
Charlotte Møller
Monika Lorenzo-Perez
Monika Lorenzo-Perez
Author LinkedIn connections

In a judgment that will undoubtedly impact what has become fairly common practice when filing notices of intention to appoint an administrator ("NOITA"), the Court of Appeal has held in JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd[1] that a company seeking to give notice of intention to appoint under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"), and to file a copy of it with the court, triggering the interim moratorium, must have a settled intention to appoint an administrator.

Background

JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited ("JCAM") was the owner of premises of which Davis Haulage Ltd (the "Company") was the tenant.  In 2015 the Company was struggling to make the rental payments due and by early 2016 the rent was in arrears in excess of £200,000.  JCAM notified the Company that they would take steps to recover possession of the premises if the arrears were not settled in full within seven days.  On 28 January

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Woodville Collapse And Regulatory Reform – Litigation Funding In The Spotlight

The collapse of Woodville Consultants Ltd has exposed significant vulnerabilities in the rapidly expanding litigation funding market, which operates largely outside mainstream financial regulation. With nearly £300 million owed to retail investors and questionable lending practices to law firms, the case raises critical questions about investor protection, regulatory oversight, and the future balance of power in funded litigation.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
RPC
RPC
Article

Hunkemöller: English Court Stays Liability Management Exercise Litigation Pending Judgment In Parallel New York Proceedings

The English High Court has stayed proceedings challenging Hunkemöller's liability management exercise pending judgment in related New York litigation. This decision examines the limitations of multi-jurisdictional litigation strategies in cross-border restructurings and the enforceability of exclusive jurisdiction clauses for beneficial noteholders. The ruling provides critical guidance on the sequencing of claims across different jurisdictions when challenging complex liability management exercises.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
A&O Shearman
A&O Shearman
Article

High Court Rules That Administrators May Be Able To Pay Administration Expenses And Litigation Funding Ahead Of “super Priority” Moratorium Debts

The High Court has determined that administrators can enter into litigation funding arrangements allowing funders to be repaid from litigation proceeds ahead of moratorium debts with "super priority" status, provided this aligns with the administration's purpose and the administrators' duties. This ruling addresses a critical question about the interplay between protected moratorium creditors and the practical realities of funding litigation in insolvency proceedings.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Article

A Guide To Misfeasance Claims Against Directors

Directors of insolvent companies may face misfeasance claims when liquidators or administrators investigate potential misuse of company funds, breaches of fiduciary duties, or prioritizing personal interests over creditors. Understanding the legal framework under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, common allegations, and available defenses is crucial for directors navigating these serious investigations that can result in personal liability and disqualification.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Weightmans LLP
Weightmans LLP
Article

Mental Health Moratorium Fails To Block Receiver Sale

The High Court has clarified the interaction between mental health crisis moratoriums under the Debt Respite Scheme and secured lending enforcement. When property security covers a company's debt rather than an individual's personal liability, receivers can proceed with sales despite the moratorium. This decision provides crucial guidance for insolvency practitioners and lenders navigating the complex intersection of mental health protections and security enforcement.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP