Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Ben Zielinski, senior associate at Shoosmiths, considers the decision in Bank Leumi (UK) plc, petitioner. He says the decision provides a helpful clarification that a company’s centre of main interests (COMI) is irrelevant to determine territorial jurisdiction in Scotland.
Bank Leumi (UK) plc, petitioner  CSOH 129, 2017 Scot (D) 6/10
The case concerned a petition which was presented in the Court of Session in Scotland by a secured creditor, seeking the making of an administration order against an English registered company. The petitioner averred that the Court of Session had jurisdiction to hear the petition because the company’s COMI, as defined in Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the Recast Regulation on Insolvency), was in Scotland. An order for intimation and service of the petition and certain interim orders was granted. However, when the petition returned to court, senior counsel for the petitioner candidly drew the court’s attention to the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction to make the administration order as it was uncertain whether the Recast Regulation on Insolvency and the concept of COMI were relevant to determining jurisdiction between the courts of the constituent parts of the UK.
The Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) says that the court that may make an administration order in respect of a company is a court that has jurisdiction to wind that company up. IA 1986, s 120 provides that the Court of Session has jurisdiction to wind up any company registered in Scotland. IA 1986, s 117 makes similar provision in respect of the High Court and companies registered in England and Wales. Both sections are qualified with a sub-section stating:
‘This section is subject to Article 3 of the EU Regulation’.
Article 3 of the Recast Regulation on Insolvency provides the courts of the EU Member State where a company has its COMI with jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings. The petitioner argued that the qualification meant that Article 3 had been adopted in national law for the purpose of determining jurisdiction between the parts of the UK.
Lord Doherty found that the Court of Session did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. He noted that there was no case law on the point, but that academic writers universally disagreed with the petitioner’s argument.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234