UK: Two Bites At The Cherry

Last Updated: 1 February 2010
Article by Rita Lowe, Martin Brown and Inga West

The rule in Cherry v Boultbee (the "Rule") had all but disappeared from reported cases in this jurisdiction for more than half a century until 2006 when it was revived in the Court of Appeal, with potentially dramatic consequences for those within the sphere of influence of insolvent companies. Last month, two more cases bolstered the rather obscure Rule's new lease of life. The parties in both Cattles Plc v Welcome Financial Services Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 3027 (Ch) and Mills, Bloom & Ors (as joint administrators of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Ltd) v HSBC Trustee (C.I.) Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 3377 (Ch) accepted (for the purposes of their respective High Court hearings) the Court of Appeal's 2006 interpretation of the Rule in Re SSSL Realisations (2002) Ltd [2006] Ch. 610, but sought a ruling on whether the non-compete clauses in their respective finance documents evidenced a sufficiently clear intention to oust the Rule's effect in the calculation of dividends payable to creditors who are also debtors of the insolvent company.

The Rule in Cherry v Boultbee

The Rule is sometimes referred to as a "right of quasi-retainer", or alternatively the "fund ascertainment principle". It can be briefly summarised as the principle that no one should be admitted to share in the distribution of a fund until he has discharged his obligation to contribute to the fund.

At first sight, the principle looks similar to a right of set-off, but it is not. The Rule can only apply where there is no set-off, because where set-off (such as insolvency set-off) applies, the Rule is displaced. The Rule can also be displaced by clear contractual intention, but it has often been problematic deciding whether such a clear intention has been demonstrated, especially since the Rule's legal characteristics are hard to describe and do not fit easily within common definitions such as "asserting" or "enforcing" "rights", "security" and/or "claims".

Chadwick LJ in SSSL described the Rule as follows:

"(1) The general rule applicable in the distribution of a fund is that a person cannot take an aliquot [i.e a defined] share out of the fund unless he first brings into the fund what he owes. Effect is given to the general rule, as a matter of accounting, by treating the fund as notionally increased by the amount of the contribution; determining the amount of the share by applying the appropriate proportion to the notionally increased fund and distributing to the claimant the amount of the share (so determined) less the amount of the contribution...

(2) That general rule is applicable not only where the claimant (X) is indebted to the fund but also where the fund has a right to be indemnified by X against a liability which the fund may be required to meet in the future, as surety for a debt owed by X to a creditor (Y). It is not necessary that the liability to Y has been satisfied out of the fund: it is enough that it may have to be satisfied in the future...

(3) The general rule – as applicable to a case where the fund has a right to be indemnified by X is not displaced in a case where the claimant (X) is in bankruptcy..."

Mills & Ors v HSBC Trustee (C.I.) Ltd & Ors

KSF went into administration owing its subsidiary, Funding, GBP242,568,988. Funding also went into administration owing HSBC Trustee (the "Trustee") GBP240,330,000, which had been guaranteed by KSF.

The Trustee proved for the full amount in both KSF's and Funding's respective administrations. Funding submitted a proof for its debt in KSF's administration. The rule against double proof prevented KSF from setting off its indemnity claim against Funding (which arose from its guarantee of Funding's liability to the Trustee) in accordance with the usual insolvency set-off rules.

KSF's Administrators gave notice under r.2.68 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 that they intended to make a distribution in the administration. KSF's Administrators sought to apply the Rule to Funding's claim against KSF. In that event, KSF's fund of assets available for distribution to creditors would be notionally increased by the amount of the debt contingently due by Funding to KSF, but the dividend (calculated on the notionally increased fund) due from KSF to Funding would be reduced by the same amount (see the method described in (1) above).

Funding had no significant creditors other than the Trustee, who stood to lose the ability to recoup a significant part of its debt if Funding's dividend was reduced by the Rule. It was in the Trustee's interests to establish that the Rule had been excluded or should be applied differently. Bound by the method of application settled by the Court of Appeal in SSSL (for the purposes of the High Court hearing), the Trustee therefore sought to argue that the non-compete clause contained in the finance documents excluded the application of the Rule.

The Chancellor held that while an express reference to the Rule was not required to exclude it, a clear intention had to be demonstrated in the wording of the contract. He then went through the non-compete clause, bit by bit, taking a literal interpretative approach to the meaning of the words and the legal characteristics of the Rule, and concluded that the relevant non-compete clause did not evidence a clear intention by the parties to exclude the operation of the Rule.

Cattles Plc v Welcome Financial Services Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 3027 (Ch)

The Cattles case involved a group of companies that was seeking to restructure its finances. In order to do so, it became necessary to establish certain creditors' entitlements if the group companies were to go into insolvent liquidation. As with Mills, the case involved a parent and its subsidiary, various banking facilities, and some notes and bonds, some of which had been guaranteed by various group members. Also as in Mills, the parties considered themselves bound by the SSSL interpretation of the Rule, at least in the hearing before the High Court, and so they, too, sought to establish whether the various non-compete clauses contained in the several finance documents excluded the operation of the Rule. The Judge's finding on this point was obiter but he thought it appropriate to give reasons for the purposes of a subsequent appeal.

HHJ David Cooke referred to the modern approach of the courts to construction of documents contained in the principles of construction set out by Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28. Cooke HHJ, differing from the Chancellor's approach in Mills (whose judgment was published after Cattles), took a more commercial view of the parties' intention as evidenced by the non-compete clauses and decided that the parties had effectively ousted the application of the Rule.

Comment

The approaches taken to contractual interpretation by the two judges in Cattles and Mills are completely different: the literal approach of the Chancellor in Mills contrasts with HHJ Cooke's commercial approach in Cattles. Obviously arguments relating to contractual interpretation depend upon the drafting of a particular clause, and so neither case can provide an exact answer to other cases unless an identical clause is being considered. However, an appeal to settle the correct approach to contractual interpretation in these circumstances is highly desirable in the interests of establishing some certainty, especially as the current economic climate is likely to produce more corporate insolvencies where the argument of whether the Rule has been excluded or not will be repeated. As in these two cases, and in SSSL before them, the effect of applying the Rule often produces big winners and losers. The issue is not likely to go away.

The other interesting aspect of any appeal will be the opportunity to review the Court of Appeal's finding in SSSL on how the Rule should be applied, particularly with respect to the amount of an indemnity liability contribution that is required to be brought into account where the guarantor is insolvent. As SSSL was a Court of Appeal decision, a "leapfrog" appeal to the Supreme Court will be necessary, and we understand that leave to apply for such an appeal has been given. We further understand that permission to appeal was also given in Cattles.

It seems that there's life left in the old Rule yet.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 28/01/2010.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions