Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that the appointment of administrators out of court by the directors of QM Systems Ltd (In Administration) was valid, notwithstanding that: (i) the heading on the notice of appointment gave the wrong identity of the appointor, (ii) that one, as opposed to three copies of the notice of appointment was filed at court electronically, and (iii) that the notice of appointment failed to exhibit the consent given by a QFCH. This case provides another example of the sort of defects which will not invalidate an administrator’s appointment. Should such errors arise in future cases, comfort can be taken that the appointment will not be invalid and that the grant of an order confirming validity of the appointment will be likely. Written by Govinder Chambay, barrister at Guildhall Chambers.

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: This case highlights the consequences of administrators not seeking approval from creditors for their fees early on during the insolvency process. The court ordered the office-holders’ costs in the application be reduced because they had not approached the creditors at an early enough stage in the proceedings. Alan Bennett, partner at Ashfords LLP, considers the background to and practical implications of the judgment.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that, through the twists and turns of (partial) creditor agreement, the application of the Insolvency Rules 2016, the fee estimate of a company’s former Administrators, the promise of those same Administrators not to draw remuneration beyond a set amount, the rule in Ex parte James, the intervention of a restructuring plan under Part 26A, the interpretation of the Plan documentation, and the refusal by the Plan Administrators to increase the Administrators’ remuneration, that the issue identified in the Administrators’ application was not one on which the court could adjudicate. Instead of making an application under rules 18.24/18.28, any claim by the Administrators should have been brought under CPR 7. However, the pragmatic guidance given by Lord Justice Zacaroli after dismissing the application appeared to be intended to ‘steer’ the Administrators and Plan Administrators towards a consensual result. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Erskine Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this ‘highly unusual’ application, administrators sought the permission of the court to remove the sole director of eight wholly–owned subsidiary SPVs (none of which were in a formal insolvency process) and appoint new directors in his place, without the need to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The court held that it had the jurisdiction to grant the order sought. Further, the court was satisfied that it should exercise that jurisdiction on the facts of the case—the administrators had demonstrated urgency and a specific necessity for the order sought. Written by Jessica Powers, barrister, at New Square Chambers.

An admiralty court is a court that hears maritime and shipping disputes, including claims arising from collisions, salvage, cargo damage, marine insurance, ship mortgages, limitation of liability and maritime liens. In modern UK practice, these matters are heard in specialist lists within the ordinary civil courts, but “admiralty court” remains the standard term.In England and Wales, admiralty jurisdiction is exercised by the Admiralty Court of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, with its scope and procedure governed principally by the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Civil Procedure Rules (Part 61). Northern Ireland has an Admiralty Division of the High Court under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. In Scotland, admiralty business is heard mainly in the Court of Session under its general civil jurisdiction; the term is more descriptive than statutory. In Ireland, admiralty jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 and related legislation.Key practical features include in rem proceedings against ships or cargo, ship arrest as security, and the international nature of many claims.

The question of whether (and to what extent) evidence suggesting or proving a fact in issue can be entered into the record and heard by the deciders of fact.

Corporate Crime analysis: In R v A and others, the Court of Appeal were asked to determine whether evidence obtained from the EncroChat application could be admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings, or whether it is excluded by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016). The Court of Appeal held that the EncroChat material was admissible as the material was being stored in or by the system at the relevant time (IPA 2016, s 4(4)(b)). They further held that the interception was carried out in accordance with a targeted equipment interference warrant under Part 5 and thus concluded that there was lawful authority for the interception. As the EncroChat material fell under the exception to IPA 2016, s 56(1)(a), the content of the communications were not prohibited from being disclosed. Alexandra Wilson, barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill, explains the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Admission of bad character as a relevant matter in issue Section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), also known as gateway D, permits the admission of bad character evidence which is 'relevant to an important matter in issue' between the prosecution and defence. Only prosecution evidence is allowed under this section. Under CJA 2003, 'matters in issue' expressly include whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged or a propensity to be untruthful but 'matters in issue' are not limited to questions of propensity or untruthfulness. In R v O, Rix LJ commented (obiter) that ‘although [propensity] is the example that section 103(1)(a) illustrates and underlines, gateway (d) is more generally concerned with relevance to an important matter in issue between a defendant and the prosecution’. See Practice Notes: Admissibility of bad character to prove propensity and Admissibility of bad character to prove untruthfulness. Relevant important matters will also include: • the identity of the suspect • the elements of the offence,

Criminal Justice Act 2003 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) permits the admission of bad character evidence under several statutory ‘gateways’. One of those gateways is if the evidence is 'important explanatory evidence' (see CJA 2003, s 101(1)(c)). This also known as gateway C and is not restricted to prosecution evidence. However, this gateway (and other statutory gateways) only applies if the evidence falls within the definition of 'bad character' as set out in CJA 2003, s 98. Bad character is defined as evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct on the defendant’s part, not including evidence which has to do with the offence with which the defendant is charged or evidence of misconduct relating to the investigation or prosecution of that offence. Misconduct is defined as the commission of any offence or other reprehensible behaviour. For example, in R v Osbourne it was held that evidence that the defendant would sometimes be aggressive and shout when he had not taken his medication was not evidence of 'bad character' within

The Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 101(1)(d) Section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) permits the admission of bad character evidence which is 'relevant to an important matter in issue' between the prosecution and defence. For more information, see Practice Note: Admissibility of bad character as a relevant 'matter in issue'. The CJA 2003 expressly states that a 'matter in issue' includes the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which they are charged. Only prosecution evidence is admissible under CJA 2003, s 101(1)(d). Reference to this gateway (and others) should only be made if the evidence falls within the definition of 'bad character' set out in CJA 2003, s 98. See Practice Note: Admissibility of defendant's bad character in criminal proceedings—What is bad character? The evidence of bad character must be relevant Under the CJA 2003, s 101(1)(d), evidence of bad character must be 'relevant' to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and the defence. The CJA 2003 defines

This Practice Note examines the admissibility of bad character evidence for the purpose of proving a propensity to be untruthful. Bad character evidence which indicates the defendant's propensity for lying is potentially admissible under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). The Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 101(1)(d) CJA 2003, s 101(1)(d) permits the admission of bad character evidence which is 'relevant to an important matter in issue' between the prosecution and defence. 'Matters in issue' are expressly stated in the CJA 2003 to include the question whether a defendant has a propensity to be untruthful. Evidence of untruthfulness must be relevant. Such evidence will not be admissible if it is

What is bad character? The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) governs the admissibility of the 'bad character' of a defendant. The starting point is to identify whether the evidence the prosecution seeks to rely on satisfies the definition of 'bad character' as set out in CJA 2003, s 98. 'Bad character' is very broadly defined under CJA 2003, s 98. It means 'evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct' or other 'reprehensible behaviour' other than evidence which: • has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or • is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence The line between bad character evidence, and evidence which has to do with alleged facts of the offence charged, can be a fine one. A nexus between the evidence and the offence can be established by showing a connection in time; a temporal nexus. Bad character therefore includes evidence of previous convictions and cautions. It has also been held to encompass