LexisNexis Corporate Rescue and Insolvency: Case Alerter – June 2026

At-a-glance case summaries provided by the Gatehouse Chambers’ Insolvency, featuring:

• Rich v JDDR Capital Ltd [2026] EWHC 853 (Ch)
• Kiko UK Ltd v Jamino Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] EWCA Civ 513

Read the latest CRI Case Alerter authored by Michael Maris and Alice Whyte below.

Rich v JDDR Capital Ltd [2026] EWHC 853 (Ch),
Before: ICCJ Agnello KC
This matter concerned two linked insolvency applications arisingfrom the same alleged debt under personal guarantees given by Mr and Mrs Rich for a loan in favour of Lawbit Limited (of which
they were directors) from the creditor, Muskoka Estates Limited. The loan had not been paid on time. A statutory demand was served upon Mrs Rich and a bankruptcy petition presented against Mr Rich on basis of the same personal guarantee.

Mrs Rich sought to set aside the demand and Mr Rich oppose the petition on essentially the same grounds – that there was an understanding, representation, estoppel or waiver precluding enforcement of the agreement and guarantees. Mr Rich also sought dismissal due to an earlier extant petition without a listed hearing and his set unissued set-aside application, or a stay pending determination of that application.

The court considered the well-trodden principles in relation to whether or not a debt is disputed, with reference to CFL Finance Ltd v Laser Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 228; [2021] ECC 4 and Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 643.

ICCJ Agnello KC rejected Mr Rich’s dismissal arguments, holding that the disputed debt issue could be determined presently, and that the same disputed debt points in any set aside application could be resolved in the present application.

The court found that Mr and Mrs Rich relied on a vague, unparticularised understanding/representation amounting to no more than a bare assertion without any contemporaneous documentary support, in contrast with the clear, unambiguous personal guarantee signed with legal advice. The bare assertion failed to meet the disputed debt test.

The decision is a useful reminder that, whilst the threshold to show a dispute may be low, it is not non-existent. Allegations with an air of unreality or implausibility amounting to bare assertions may be rejected by the court. Where possible, debtors would be well-advised to support their allegations with reference contemporaneous documentation, particularly where the source of the debt is a written document.

Kiko UK Ltd v Jamino Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] EWCA Civ 513

The case concerned the liability of a parent company under a parent company guarantee where the subsidiary, an assignee of a lease, went into CVL.

Kiko UK Ltd (Kiko) assigned a 10-year commercial lease of premises on Oxford St to Jamino Ltd (Jamino). Kiko entered into an authorised guarantee agreement (AGA) with Jamino and the landlord, pursuant to which Kiko covenanted that Jamino would perform the tenant’s obligations. At the same time, Kiko entered into a parent company guarantee (PCG) with Jamino and Pianoforte, Jamino’s parent company. The PCG contained an indemnity clause pursuant to which Pianoforte indemnified Kiko against losses arising from any failure by Jamino to either pay any rents or observe or perform any of the tenant covenants of the lease. The PCG further expressly provided that Pianoforte’s liability as guarantor would not be reduced, discharged or otherwise adversely affected by the disclaimer of liability of the assignee under the lease.

Jamino defaulted on its lease obligations, causing Kiko to discharge its liabilities to the landlord under the AGA. Jamino subsequently entered into creditors’ voluntary liquidation and its liquidator disclaimed the lease. Pursuant to s 178(4)(b) Insolvency Act 1986, the lease was deemed to continue to subsist between Kiko, Pianoforte and the landlord. Kiko was subsequently required by the landlord to enter into a new lease, pursuant to its rights under cl 4 of the AGA, which was triggered upon disclaimer.

At first instance, the judge held that the disclaimer was not a “failure” to perform the lease and that, accordingly, Kiko’s obligation to enter into a new lease did not arise from a failure by Jamino.

The Court of Appeal found that the disclaimer of the lease did constitute a failure to pay rents or observe the tenant covenants, within the meaning of the indemnity clause in the PCG. Very clear words were needed to limit a guarantor’s liability when a lease was disclaimed. Clause 4.1.8 of the PCG in fact expressly preserved Pianoforte’s liability on disclaimer. Pianoforte could not identify any sensible commercial explanation as to why the parties would have intended Pianoforte to guarantee performance on disclaimer, but not on disclaimer following Jamino’s insolvency.