*/
Company – Insolvency. The proceedings concerned a company (the company) in creditors' voluntary liquidation. The applicant creditor of the company applied for an order, under r 4.70(2) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, varying or setting aside the decision of the first respondent liquidator and chairman at a meeting of the company's creditors to admit the applicant as a creditor for voting purposes for a lower sum than the applicant contended should have been admitted, with the result that a resolution for the appointment of a joint administrator was defeated. The Companies Court, in allowing the application, held that S had erred in treating a liquidated claim (the moiety) as an unliquidated claim and in the application of the Rules. The moiety claim was a provable debt under the Rules and the applicant had, on the evidence, established its claim. It had not been open to the respondents to use a sum by way of set off against the moiety claim.
Company – Insolvency. The proceedings concerned a company (the company) in creditors' voluntary liquidation. The applicant creditor of the company applied for an order, under r 4.70(2) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, varying or setting aside the decision of the first respondent liquidator and chairman at a meeting of the company's creditors to admit the applicant as a creditor for voting purposes for a lower sum than the applicant contended should have been admitted, with the result that a resolution for the appointment of a joint administrator was defeated. The Companies Court, in allowing the application, held that S had erred in treating a liquidated claim (the moiety) as an unliquidated claim and in the application of the Rules. The moiety claim was a provable debt under the Rules and the applicant had, on the evidence, established its claim. It had not been open to the respondents to use a sum by way of set off against the moiety claim.
Our call for sufficient resources for the justice system and for the Bar to scrutinise the BSB’s latest consultation
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses alcohol testing for the Family Court
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth explains how to make sure you are investing suitably, and in your long-term interests
In conversation with Matthew Bland, Lincoln’s Inn Library
Millicent Wild of 5 Essex Chambers describes her pupillage experience
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth explores some key steps to take when starting out as a barrister in order to secure your financial future
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
Expectations, experiences and survival tips – some of the things I wished I had known (or applied) when I was starting pupillage. By Chelsea Brooke-Ward
If you are in/about to start pupillage, you will soon be facing the pupillage stage assessment in professional ethics. Jane Hutton and Patrick Ryan outline exam format and tactics
In a two-part opinion series, James Onalaja considers the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s requests for arrest warrants in the controversial Israel-Palestine situation
