|
Toggle Nav
Doyle, Keay and Curl: Annotated Insolvency Legislation Fourteenth Edition
This book provides fully curated practical guidance on the key primary and secondary insolvency legislation.
Published: 24 April, 2026
Why should you buy Doyle, Keay and Curl: Annotated Insolvency Legislation Fourteenth Edition
Doyle, Keay and Curl: Annotated Insolvency Legislation Fourteenth Edition provides fully curated practical guidance on the key primary and secondary insolvency legislation. In addition to the complete texts of the key statutory provisions, each is annotated with detailed analysis and commentary, providing practitioners and academics with everything they need within a single portable volume.
What's new for 2026?
Updates to the commentary for 2026 include the following key cases and developments:
- Supreme Court decision Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd [2025] UKSC 18, [2025] 2 WLR 1015 that liability for fraudulent trading under s.214 is not restricted to company directors
- The first ever appellate examination of the statutory defence to an action based on a transaction at an undervalue under s.238(5) in TAQA Bratani Ltd v Fujairah Oil and Gas UK LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1669
- Court of Appeal decision Purkiss (as liquidator of Ethos Solutions Ltd) v Kennedy [2025] EWCA Civ 268, [2025] 1 WLR 3871 on the statutory 'purpose' under s.423(3)
- Important first-instance decisions on insolvency practice, including the ability of a company entering MVL to pay its debts within 12 months in Noal SCSP v Novalpina Capital LLP [2025] EWHC 1392 (Ch), the removal of officeholders in BTI 2014 LLC v O'Connell [2025] EWHC 2115 (Ch), and contractual limitation on the liability of liquidators in Pagden (as liquidator of Core VCT IV plc) v Fry [2025] EWHC 2316 (Ch)
- Privy Council (on appeal from BVI) decision Stevanovich v Richardson [2025] UKPC 18, [2025] 2 BCLC 786 on the test for standing to challenge liquidator decision-making
- THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2026] UKSC 6 - significant new Supreme Court judgment, suggesting some of the key authorities on the correct approach to limitation for officeholder claims under the IA 1986 were wrongly decided.