Insolvency case law update: February 2012

15 Feb 2012

Horler v Rubin

Citation: Daniel Thomas Brian Horler v David Rubin & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 4

Summary: Lord Justice Lewison has provided useful guidance as to the operation and effect of Insolvency Rules 1986 8.1 and 8.3 in this case that explored, amongst other things, the effect of a proxy and the powers of a holder of a proxy in the administration of an insolvent estate.

Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Payne

Citation: Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Payne [2011] UKSC 60

Summary: The Supreme Court carried out, amongst other things, an enlightening study of the Debt Relief Order (DRO) regime as it explored the question whether the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions can continue to recoup social fund loans and benefit overpayments by deducting from current benefit payments during a moratorium period after the making of DRO under Part 7A of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Louis Glatt v Nigel Heath Sinclair

Citation: Louis Glatt v Nigel Heath Sinclair [2011] EWCA Civ 1317

Summary: The Court of Appeal allowed (on limited grounds) an appeal against the dismissal of an application for permission to continue an action for breach of duty against the respondent Court appointed receiver. The case is a useful case study in the application of guidance relating to permission to appeal given by Jonathan Parker LJ in McGowan v Chadwick [2001] EWCA Civ 1758.

McGuinness v Norwich & Peterborough Building Society

Citation: McGuinness v Norwich & Peterborough Building Society [2011] EWCA

Summary: A significant case in which the Court of Appeal considered the interrelationship between liabilities under contracts of indemnity and guarantee and section 267(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. In particular, it was found that a ‘see to it’ liability of the type arising on the classic analysis in Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd does not constitute a debt for a liquidated sum.


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: