Table of contents
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Article summary
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: At a consequentials hearing, Mr Justice Hildyard held that an offer made by administrators approximately two–and–a–half years before the main judgment was handed down was compliant with CPR Part 36. The key issue in dispute was to what extent there was a ‘disconnect’ between the offer (which demanded the immediate payment of a sum of money) and the declaration granted pursuant to the main judgment (which was limited to declaring the extent of the liability). Hildyard J considered that Part 36 applied, albeit that the ‘disconnect’ resulted in an outcome that cut a middle ground between the results contended for by the administrators and the respondents (‘Firth Rixson’). The result was that some, but not all, of the consequences of CPR 36.17 applied for the benefit of the administrators. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Erskine Chambers.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial