Commercial update - Rebecca Farrell: Substituted service of bankruptcy petitions
14th March 2019
The High Court has ruled that permission to serve a bankruptcy petition by a substituted means cannot be given retrospectively. Rebecca Farrell analyses the decision Ardawa v. Uppal and Jordan [2019] EWHC 456 (Ch) and considers how it changes the law.
Click here to read Rebecca's analysis.
Rebecca is a Commercial Law barrister with a significant Company Law and Insolvency practice. View her profile here.
Related News
-
3PB’s commercial and property barrister Alex Whatley will be speaking at the Civil Litigation Conference on the Thursday 27th March for the Bournemouth Law Society. The conference is taking place at The Carlton Hotel in Bournemouth. To book your ticket for this event, please click here. The cost is £100 for members and £150 for non-members. Alex Whatley is recommended in both Chambers and Partners UK and Legal 500 as a top commercial litigation barrister....
Continue reading -
3PB's commercial litigation barrister Makhsudul Islam (pictured here) acted for the defendant who was pursued by his former solicitors for recovery of its unpaid legal fees, following an alleged breach of contract. The High Court in Birmingham has now confirmed in GT Stewart Limited v Mr Paul Oliver Taylor that a claimant who settled a claim in its favour was not automatically entitled to its costs by virtue of CPR 44.2(2)(a). Further to a dispute...
Continue reading -
Rebecca Farrell, specialist commercial and insolvency barrister at 3PB Barristers (3 Paper Buildings), has written an article exploring three recent Insolvency Appeals and their potential impact. In her article, Rebecca addresses the Supreme Court decision in El Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4 which was handed down last week. This Appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Insolvency Act”). In its analysis the Supreme Court supported a...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers’ (3 Paper Buildings) specialist commercial, chancery and property barrister Alexander Whatley has written for LexisNexis on the case of R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, which was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the correct characterisation of a contract. In his article, entitled “Amendments in retrospect – Repair or replace? (R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners)”, Alexander explores the legal distinctions between amendment, rescission and replacement, the relevant contextual considerations for the courts and...
Continue reading
