Archive

I propose a change to the wording of Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.
A recent judgement (Churchill & Churchill Vs First Independent Factors) interpreted “with a view to being” as having effect to what is now. Whatever the precise English interpretation and I believe that as English is a live language the commonly and widely accepted interpretation should prevail, it is clear that for 20 years Insolvency Practitioners and their legal counsel have taken the view that while “with a view to being” clearly described future intention it had no bearing on the status at the time of sending of the notice referred to in the rule.

Not only did this judgement dramatically change the long accepted interpretation it seems to me that it runs counter to the intent of the act and thus the will of parliament.

It is clear that in dealing with the transfer of assets from the liquidating to the successor company, the purpose of this part of the act is to ensure that all the facts are made available to the creditors of the liquidating company so they may make an informed choice. In my view the interpretation in this judgement makes full disclosure of all the facts less likely as it forces the person who would normally be named in the subject notice not to be a director of the successor company and thus much less likely to be named in the notice. At the very least all that the judgement achieves, apart from a retrospective change in the accepted interpretation of the law, is to introduce some administrative gymnastics into the process and I cannot see how that will make things clearer.