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
Printer Friendly Version
Preferences—the rebuttable presumption does not lead to easy victories, even when a key witness is missing. A businessman juggling the many (and perhaps usual) pressures of an insolvent business he is seeking to save is perfectly possible to have no regard to preferring anyone, even an associate. A judgment based on sound findings of fact and a fair analysis of the relevant statute and case law is unlikely to be appealable. Written by Mark Sands, personal insolvency partner at Quantuma LLP.
Re O’Shaughnessy (Deceased); Abdulali (trustee in bankruptcy) v Finnegan and another  EWHC 1806 (Ch),  All ER (D) 133 (Jul)
It is tempting to see a case where a rebuttable assumption works in your favour as a strong case, especially where a key witness is expected to fail to give evidence. This case is a reminder that a rebuttable presumption is but one side of the coin. Insolvency practitioners and their legal teams need to gather and consider all the (perhaps limited) evidence before deciding whether to issue proceedings and not simply rely on a rebuttable presumption. When you weigh up what the court may decide, if the rebuttable presumption is needed to tip the prospects of success in your favour then you may not have a strong case and so it may in effect be decided on the toss of a coin.
The district judge at first instance, approved by Birss J on appeal, almost used the ‘sunshine test’ (see Re White & Osmond (Parkstone) Ltd (unreported, 30 June 1960)). Practitioners should bear that in mind when debating which desire most influenced a debtor (or company). A debtor busy trying to save his business is often influenced by those desires rather than worrying about what may happen to one or other creditor if his business fails.
I suggest there is nothing wrong for a debtor ‘who genuinely believe that the clouds will roll away and the sunshine of prosperity will shine upon them again and disperse the fog of their depression are not entitled to incur credit [or repay credit?] to help them get over the bad time’ (as per Buckley J in Re White & Osmond (Parkstone) Ltd).
Birss J was asked to consider whether the district judge at first instance was right to decide that the debtor was not influenced by a desire to prefer the respondent, despite the respondent being an associate of the debtor and thus the rebuttable presumption applied, that the debtor was indeed so influenced.
The payment of the debt (so a preference in fact) arose from a new loan brokered by the respondent from a company he controlled at a time when the debtor was insolvent and seeking to keep his business interests afloat and his creditors at bay. While it was not a term of the new loan that the loan to the respondent was repaid, the two events were so closely connected as to bring into play the question of which element or elements of the transactions influenced the debtor the most in his deciding to pay the respondent.
Unfortunately, by the time of the trial the debtor had passed away. As he had not been questioned on this matter prior to his passing, no evidence was able to be considered from the debtor, who would usually be the key witness, as it is the question of how his decision to pay the respondent was influenced, which is the key in such cases.
The district judge at first instance had decided that the debtor was influenced by the desire to pay his creditors and ‘keep the ship afloat’, rather than by the desire to prefer the respondent. The judge did not even consider it to be one of the factors which influenced the debtor.
Birss J was asked to consider whether the district judge, in finding that the debtor was influenced by a desire to obtain the new loan, was justified in finding that the debtor was not also influenced by a desire to prefer the respondent, and that the desire to prefer was outside a range of proper considerations by which the debtor may have been actuated.
The appeal failed and the decision of the district judge at first instance was upheld. The findings of fact and the manner in which the district judge applied those to the relevant law was sound. Birss J explored the way in which a court should review the various competing desires which may be present, and found there was nothing inconsistent with the judge’s findings, which included that the debtor was influenced by a desire to keep his business afloat.
Court: High Court (Chancery Division)
Judge: Birss J
Date of judgment: 17 July 2018
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the link below for further information:
Unwinding unlawful transactions in bankruptcy (subscriber access only)
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
0330 161 1234