A supporting creditor (who has given notice of their intention to appear at the hearing of a bankruptcy petition) may take control of the bankruptcy petition. This is called taking carriage of the bankruptcy petition. The main difference between this and the substitution of the petitioning creditor route is that no amendments

Contaminated land regime The contaminated land regime contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA ( EPA 1990, Pt IIA) places a statutory duty on local authorities to identify 'contaminated land' in their area and to secure remediation. If a site is investigated or designated as contaminated land, the local authority will look first for any Class A 'causers' or 'knowing permitters'. If no Class A persons can be found, the current Class B owner or occupier may be liable. See Practice Note: Contaminated land—who may be liable? Tenant legally excluded as Class B occupier paying a rack rent Where there are no Class A persons and two or more Class B persons have been identified (eg the landlord as owner and the tenant as occupier), the statutory guidance seeks to exclude from liability a Class B person who does not have an interest in the capital value of the land in question. It excludes from liability any Class B person who: • occupies the land under a licence, or other agreement,

If the winding-up petition has not been advertised, no notices in support or opposing the winding-up petition have been received by the petitioner and the company consents, the winding-up petition may be withdrawn by the petitioning creditor making a without-notice application at least five days before the hearing of the winding-up petition. In these circumstances the winding-up petition may be withdrawn on the basis that costs are paid in accordance with the parties' agreement. Any order pursuant to a successful application under this rule must contain: • identification details for the company • the date on which the winding-up petition was presented • the name and postal address of the applicant • a

Legislative provisions The applicable principles regarding making, out of time, an application for permission to file a cross-petition will depend on whether a client wishes to defend the proceedings as well. When the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 came into effect in 2011 the rules regarding defending divorce proceedings and cross-petitioning changed. Previously, a respondent wishing to defend had to file an answer containing a cross-petition. The current position is: • if the respondent wishes to defend the petition, then an answer must be filed within 21 days beginning with the date by which the acknowledgement of service is required to be filed—the answer

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: In this case, Mr Hunt had been appointed as provisional liquidator of a partnership. There was evidence that the partnership carried on a Ponzi scheme. Mr Hunt obtained freezing orders against the partners and gave a cross-undertaking in damages limited to the net realisations in the insolvent estate. The without notice injunction was continued at first instance but set aside by the Court of Appeal on the basis that the judge was wrong to accept the limited cross-undertaking in damages offered by Mr Hunt. Lord Justice Newey helpfully set out the steps which an office-holder will be expected to take before a limited cross-undertaking will be acceptable. Lord Justice Snowden raised (but did not decide) certain interesting points for the future. Written by Phillip Gale, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

The power to seek directions from the court Office-holders in insolvency proceedings have statutory powers to seek directions from the court in relation to the performance of their duties. These powers derive from: • section 112 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in the case of voluntary liquidations • IA 1986, s 168(3) in the case of compulsory liquidations (winding-up by the court) • IA 1986, Sch B1, para 63 in the case of administrations (and special administrations—see Re Worldspreads Ltd (in special administration)) • IA 1986, s 303(2) in the case of bankruptcies For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: When can an office-holder seek directions from the court in insolvency proceedings?—key cases. When may the power be exercised? In the context of voluntary winding-up proceedings (whether a creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL) or a members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL)), the power to seek directions from the court may be exercised to determine any question arising in the winding-up, or to

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content on the power of an office-holder to seek directions from the court in insolvency proceedings. For further reading on this topic, see Practice Note: When can an office-holder seek directions from the court in insolvency proceedings? Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Denali Corp – FZCO (incorporated in Dubai) v Manson [2026] EWHC 2287 (Ch) 4 September 2026 The court will give directions that the giving of consent by liquidators to an assignment involving a designated person for the purposes of sanctions legislation will not offend the legislation if the assigned rights are an economic resource (rather than a fund) for the purposes of the legislation and the giving of consent is not a dealing with an economic resource. Re Hunt and another (in their capacity as joint administrators of Cross Transport Ltd) [2026] EWHC 1636 (Ch) 30 June 2026 The court will give directions as to

Family analysis: The court considered the circumstances in which an error or omission after the order has been drawn may be corrected pursuant to the ‘slip rule’ (per Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 29.16) in circumstances where the husband argued that the order had ceased to have effect. The court held that a slip rule amendment can be made at any stage to enable the court to properly reflect what was intended and to enable a fair resolution of proceedings, consistent with the interests of justice. Rachael Goodall, barrister at 3PB Barristers, examines the judgment and its practical implications.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision explains when and in what circumstances a court should take the extreme step of issuing a bench warrant in order to force compliance with orders previously given in the same case. It contains a useful summary of the existing authorities on this issue and of the principles which the court should consider before deciding to take such a draconian measure. Written by Colleen Hanley, barrister at Twenty Essex.

Electronic direct marketing in any sector requires consideration of: • the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (PECR 2003), SI 2003/2426 • the General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679 • self-regulatory codes such as the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) In relation to charitable fundraising, the Code of Fundraising Practice will also be relevant. Detailed guidance on all of these bodies of rules in the context of direct marketing is contained in Practice Note: Direct marketing. Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, SI 2003/2426 It is generally not permitted under PECR 2003, SI 2003/2426 to send unsolicited emails to individuals without their consent. The consent must be to the standard required by the GDPR (freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous). See Practice Notes: Processing personal data—standard of consent and How to manage consent—personal data. There is an exception to the requirement to obtain consent when marketing similar products and services

In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the claim relates to a business-to-business contract. When considering a claim for damages, the court will consider the principles of causation and remoteness. Once causation has been established, the innocent party should consider whether the damage suffered is attributable to the breach in question. Damage which is too remote is not recoverable even if there is a causal link between the breach of contract and the loss. The party claiming damages is also under a duty to mitigate its loss. For more information on causation, remoteness and mitigation of loss, see Practice Notes: Causation and remoteness in contractual breach claims and Mitigation in contractual breach claims. Hadley v Baxendale established the 'two limb test' for assessing whether damage caused is or is not too remote. Damages may only be recovered for: • losses arising naturally, according to the ordinary course of things, from the breach of contract. The defaulting party is

In a comprehensive review of the relevant authorities, Ramsey J concluded that a third party against whom a contribution had been established could also be liable, under the 1978 Act, to contribute towards the costs paid by the defendant to the claimant as part of an overall settlement of the main action. This jurisdiction did not, however, extend to a power under the 1978 Act to order the third party to contribute towards the defendant's costs of the main action. There is such a power under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, although, in the instant case Ramsey J considered it not just to exercise his discretion to make such an order. (Mouchel Limited v Van Oord (UK) Limited)