Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court has taken a measured approach in addressing applications by Joint Official Liquidators (JOLs) seeking oral examination of former Farfetch executives. In partially refusing these applications under Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the court determined that written responses would suffice at this stage. The decision strikes a careful balance between the JOLs' information needs and protecting respondents from potential oppression while addressing practical concerns about confidentiality and jurisdiction. This ruling offers significant guidance on information-gathering powers in cross-border insolvencies. Written by Camilla Whitehouse, Barrister and Founder, Gainsborough Law.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a
Financial clean break orders in family proceedingsDuty of the court to consider a clean breakAlthough there is no presumption in favour of there being a financial clean break between parties on divorce, the court is under a duty to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise its powers so
Brussels I (recast)—domicile (Arts 4 and 63) [Archived]ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.This Practice Note considers the general rule set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) when determining the relevance of a defendant’s domicile to
Contributory negligence in personal injury claimsContributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a
0330 161 1234