A party wishing to reclaim their debt must submit a written claim known as a proof of debt.

This Practice Note covers: • what a proof of debt is • the procedure for proving a debt • valuation/quantification of the debt, and • creditors and the reflective loss principle The rules applicable to proving a debt under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 are found in IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, rr 14.2–14.25 regardless of whether the insolvency proceeding in which the proof is made is an administration, winding-up or bankruptcy proceeding. For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: Proof of debt—key cases. What is a proof of debt? A party wishing to file a claim for their debt in a compulsory liquidation, creditors’ voluntary liquidation, administration or bankruptcy must submit a written claim to the liquidator, administrator or trustee in bankruptcy. A creditor who claims is referred to as 'proving' for their debt and the document by which they seek to establish their claim is called their proof. An office-holder is not obliged to send a form of proof to every creditor. In compulsory liquidation,

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content on the proof of debts in an administration, liquidation or bankruptcy proceeding. The cases are divided by topic area and include: • provable debts ◦ general ◦ guarantees ◦ rule against double proof ◦ creditors and reflective loss ◦ foreign creditors ◦ limitation • proving a debt • allowing inspections of proofs • admission and rejection of proof • appeal against decision on proof • withdrawal or variation of proof • exclusion of proof by the court For further reading on this topic, see Practice Notes: • Proof of debt • Rejection of proof of debt • Creditor's appeal against rejection of proof of debt Provable debts General Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Re Paperback Collection and Recycling Ltd (in liquidation), Rattan v Natural Resources Body for Wales [2020] EWHC 1601 (Ch), [2020] All ER (D) 142 (Jun) 7 May 2020 A fine imposed on a company in criminal proceedings

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: There have now been a number of reported decisions on Part 26A Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) restructuring plans. This case is a decision on a second restructuring plan proposed by Chaptre Finance PLC, a company which has financed the construction of the beleaguered biomass power plant in Teeside. While Mr Justice Miles did no more than apply now well-established principles in reaching his decision to sanction the restructuring plan, the judgment is an important reminder of the need to adduce proper expert evidence in support of, or against the contention that a creditor will be no worse off as a result of the proposed restructuring plan being sanctioned and/or that an opposing creditor will be ‘in the money’ were the relative alternative pursued. Written by Jessica Powers, barrister at New Square Chambers.

The officer appointed by a local authority to carry out certain administrative functions as required by statute.

A proper party is a person or entity who is appropriately included in legal proceedings, but whose presence is not strictly essential for the court to determine the issues in dispute. In practice, it describes someone who has a significant legal or practical interest in the outcome (for example, being affected by a declaration, order or judgment), such that it is convenient and just for them to be joined, even though relief could be granted without them.The term is largely descriptive rather than statutory, and is used in civil procedure, judicial review, commercial litigation and some family and public law contexts. It is often contrasted with a “necessary” or “indispensable” party, without whom the court cannot properly or fairly adjudicate.Courts in England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland apply similar concepts through their rules on joinder, adding or substituting parties, and representative actions. Case law guides when a person is a proper party, focussing on avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, ensuring all interested parties are heard, and protecting against inconsistent or unenforceable judgments.

The level of service which is expected from individuals and firms regulated by the SRA.

Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides for statutory security of tenure for most business tenancies. As a result, a tenancy with security of tenure does not expire by effluxion of time but continues and either the landlord or the tenant can apply to the court for the grant of a new tenancy. The landlord can terminate the tenancy only through following the procedure as set out in LTA 1954 (or by a common law method such as forfeiture or surrender). Under LTA 1954, s 38, parties cannot contract out

The starting point is that B has no obligation to keep the land over which A has a right of way in a particular state of repair. As Lord Scott of Fostcotte put in Mocrieff v Jamieson the ‘grant of a right that required some positive action to be undertaken by the owner of the servient land in order to enable the right to be enjoyed by the grantee

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. This includes the Digital Economy Act 2017 receiving royal assent, two cases relating to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), and a series of decisions concerning professional negligence claims in property transactions. Items on the horizon for 2018 include the impact of the new Electronic Communications Code coming into force, and the hearing of a number of appeals including Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya and P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP. Also included are updates to LexisNexis®’s content, including news of exciting developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months. Reviewing 2017 Telecommunications What happened? The Digital Economy Act 2017 (DEA 2017) received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017. What are the key implications? A new Electronic Communications

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: an Upper Tribunal decision on rent and redevelopment rights in Electronic Communications Code leases, decisions on rent repayment orders and the level of penalties payable for house in multiple occupation offences, and the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2024.

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: High Court decisions on consent for alterations under a lease and the validity of an assignment entered into by an attorney, an Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision on adverse possession, and the Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2024.