- Ex parte James and challenges to officeholders’ conduct in relation to contractual arrangement and compromise agreements (Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd v Macnamara)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Court of Appeal held it was not fair for administrators to refuse to correct a contract based on a common mistake as to the value of proof of debt. Although the sum due had been determined by deed, the administrators should not have relied upon their contractual rights but should have agreed to increase the debt as admitted to proof. The creditor was entitled to seek relief both under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), and the principle in Ex parte James. Written by Sarah Clarke, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial