+44 (0) 20 7242 6105 clerks@serlecourt.co.uk
Events Hub Shortlist

Insolvency

"Serle Court maintains its reputation as a strong player in the restructuring and insolvency market"
Chambers and Partners

Insolvency

Serle Court is recognised as one of the leading sets for restructuring and insolvency work and has consistently been included in both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 since the directories commenced publication.Chambers undertakes work in all areas of restructuring and insolvency from large corporate insolvencies to personal bankruptcy cases. Insolvency litigation involving allegations of fraud is a key area of strength, drawing on chambers’ reputation in civil fraud matters, our barristers have experience appearing before both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Our barristers undertake work in all areas of restructuring and insolvency from large corporate insolvencies to personal bankruptcy cases. Insolvency litigation involving allegations of fraud is a key area of strength, drawing on chambers’ reputation in civil fraud matters, our barristers have experience appearing before both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

We have considerable experience in dealing with the cross-border insolvencies and many members have been involved in insolvencies in the Caribbean, the British Overseas Territories, the Crown Dependencies and those Asian countries which have borrowed heavily from English law, even where there is no connection with England and Wales.

Our barristers are frequently involved in directors’ disqualification proceedings acting both for the Government and the individual directors.

Daniel Lightman KC is the co-author of three chapters of Lightman and Moss on The Law of Administrators and Receivers of Companies (Sweet & Maxwell, 6th Ed, 2017).

Serle Court was awarded 'Insolvency Set of the Year' at The Legal 500 UK Awards 2020.

Serle Court is proud to be the only Barristers chambers to contribute in Capital Markets Intelligence International Insolvency & Restructuring Report 2023/24. Download Daniel Lightman KC and Charlotte Beynon's article here. 

Our barristers have been involved in most of the large insolvencies since the advent of the Insolvency Act 1986, including Lehman, BCCI and BHS. This has involved advising on and acting in both non-contentious and contentious aspects of insolvency work from the inception of the insolvency to its end.

Philip Marshall KC often acts in high-profile and high-value cases, including acting for Dr Vijay Mallya in defending bankruptcy proceedings for claim of over £1 billion arising out of banking litigation in India.

Daniel Lightman KC is in demand for winding up petitions and novel insolvency issues, and is acting in Serle Court’s top insolvency cases, including:

  • obtaining the first-ever order for the just and equitable winding up of a publicly listed company on the ground of loss of substratum (purpose)
  • representing the sole shareholder of a collapsed energy company in its challenge of the joint administrators’ fees (with Emma Hargreaves).

Daniel Lightman KC, Charlotte Beynon and Tim Benham-Mirando represent Mr Chandler, a former director of the BHS group of companies, in the ongoing BHS litigation. The trial of the claims brought by BHS’ liquidators for alleged wrongful trading and misfeasance is due to start in November 2023 and is one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2023.

Members are also working on several of the energy insolvencies going through the courts, in particular Lance Ashworth KC and Matthew Morrison who have developed a reputation for work in this area.  They represented two of the applicants in Croxen v Gas and Electric Markets Authority [2022] EWHC 2826 (Ch), in which Zacaroli J determined a number of market-wide issues arising from the failure of energy supply companies.

Ruth Jordan has acted in numerous large disqualification cases, and is often instructed by the Crown in relation to tax, insolvency and charities work.

Jennifer Meech acts for a number of sub-postmasters who were caught up in the British Post Office Scandal. They were improperly convicted of various crimes based on erroneous information provided by a faulty IT system before having their convictions quashed in 2021.  Jennifer has advised a number of individuals on the interaction between their insolvencies and their claims for malicious prosecution against the Post Office.  

  • Directories

    • Chambers UK 2022

      Serle Court is a highly regarded set for insolvency and restructuring matters, and is well positioned to handle cases arising in offshore jurisdictions such as the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Caribbean. Members are regularly instructed in both contentious and non-contentious matters, and are well versed in corporate and personal insolvencies. Insolvency litigation involving allegations of fraud is also a key area of strength for the set, drawing on the set's enviable reputation in civil fraud matters, and its barristers have experience appearing before both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

      Client service: "They clerks are very good - they're responsive, very helpful and go out of their way to find availability and slots at court."

      Silks:

      Philip Marshall KC: "An extraordinary advocate who has the ability to persuade the court. He is very, very technically able." "He is a very hard-working barrister."

      Philip Jones KC: "A very hard-working barrister."

      Lance Ashworth KC: "He is very tenacious, client-friendly and very bright. He can read through a lot of material and get to the important issues quickly and is a very well-rounded barrister."

      Daniel Lightman KC: "He's very hard-working, his attention to detail is great and his written advocacy is just fantastic."

      Legal 500 2023

      The ‘highly capable‘ set in insolvency and restructuring law, Serle Court find themselves representing clients in cases ranging from high-profile claims linked to fraud and the offshore work, alongside energy insolvencies where Lance Ashworth KC and Matthew Morrison  have represented two applicants in Croxen v Gas and Electric Markets Authority in which concerning a number of market-wide issues arising from the failure of a large number of smaller and medium-sized energy suppliers. Philip Marshall KC is a leading international insolvency silk who appears in complex commercial disputes in the UK courts while also being a Deputy High Court Judge. Daniel Lightman KC advises on insolvency issues and represents litigants in claims by and against insolvency office holders. Dan McCourt Fritz KC was appointed silk in March 2023 while Paul Johnson joined from Exchange Chambers in December 2022.

      Silks:

      Philip Marshall KC: Ranked: Tier 2

      Philip Jones KC: Ranked: Tier 2

      Lance Ashworth KC: "Lance is very approachable and down to earth for a KC. He gets on very well with clients, putting them at ease with his confidence. He is one of the best advocates, dealing with issues confidently and with a sense of humour." - Ranked: Tier 3

      Jonathan Adkin KC: ‘Jonathan exudes the intellect, deft touch and courtroom gravitas you might expect from a leading KC.’ - Ranked: Tier 3

      Daniel Lightman KC: "Daniel is an excellent advocate who undoubtedly has the ear of the court. His ability to develop arguments on technical points of law and procedure stand him apart from the rest, which he can deliver owing to the quality and diligence of his analysis and preparation." - Ranked: Tier 3

      Juniors:

      Ruth Jordan: "Responsive, decisive and commercial in her approach to her advice."

      James Mather: "Highly intelligent, but practical with it, and capable of providing detailed but also, for he lay client, readily understandable advice."

      Thomas Elias: "Calm and unflappable, noticeably so when under intense pressure."

  • Notable Cases

    • Hunt v Ubhi:

      The Court of Appeal handed down judgment on Wednesday, 19th April 2023, in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 in which it reiterated that the default rule is that applicants for freezing orders, including office holders, must provide unlimited cross undertakings in damages and that a departure from the default rule must be justified.

      John Machell KC and Dan McCourt Fritz KC, in his last appearance as a junior, acted for the successful appellant. The decision also flags, but does not resolve, some niche issues relating to the Insolvent Partnerships Order.

      The judgment can be viewed here.

    • Croxen & Ors v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority & Ors:

      On 11 November 2022 Mr Justice Zacaroli handed down judgment (available here) in respect of applications for directions by the office-holders of 10 failed energy suppliers.

      The judgment is the first to consider whether Ofgem is entitled to prove in respect of failed suppliers’ obligations to provide renewables obligation certificates or to make a buy-out payment. In this regard, the judgment further appraised whether such obligations were discharged as a result of a process of mutualisation whereby renewables obligation shortfalls were recovered from wholly or partially compliant suppliers.

      The applications also raised the question whether suppliers of last resort (SoLRs) could prove in the failed suppliers’ estates for the cost of honouring credit balances of customers that they took on. Related to this was the issue whether the SoLRs’ honouring of customer credit balances discharged the obligations customers were owed by the failed suppliers.

      The resolution of these issues was relevant to multimillion pound proofs of debt lodged by Ofgem and the various SoLRs in the failed suppliers’ estates. Alongside novel issues of statutory construction arising in respect of the renewables obligation issues, the SoLR claims involved consideration of numerous aspects of the law of unjust enrichment, including whether any enrichment of the failed suppliers occurred at the SoLRs expense in circumstances where SoLRs received a last resort supply payment in respect of the costs of honouring credit balances, and had also submitted competitive bids to be appointed. The application also provided an opportunity to test whether English law recognises a defence of passing on.

      Zacaroli J ultimately concluded that the failed suppliers’ obligations owed to customers in respect of credit balances were discharged, and that, in principle, both Ofgem and the SoLRs had viable claims.  

      Lance Ashworth KC and Matthew Morrison acted for the office-holders of Iresa Limited (in administration) and Economy Energy Trading Limited (in liquidation), two of the failed suppliers applying for directions. They were instructed by Tim Speed of Shakespeare Martineau LLP (Iresa) and Devinder Singh of Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP (Economy).

    • Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation):

      Lance Ashworth KC and Wilson Leung, instructed by Stephenson Harwood LLP, acted for the successful respondent in Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch).

      In this instructive judgment, ICC Judge Mullen clarified the requirement, contained in section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986, that the debt upon which a bankruptcy petition is founded must be for a “liquidated” sum. He held in particular that a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment was, by its nature, not for a “liquidated” sum. This is so even if the creditor can specify an exact amount for the claim.

      Hence, when drafting a bankruptcy petition, practitioners should check that the petition debt is for a liquidated sum, especially where the claim is not based on a straightforward money debt.

      However, ICC Judge Mullen proceeded to hold that, even if the petition debt was not for a liquidated sum but the bankruptcy order was made, and the bankrupt subsequently applies to annul the bankruptcy order, the court still has a discretion whether to annul. On the facts of this case, he decided not to annul, based on the bankrupt’s uncooperative attitude and the existence of other indisputable creditors.

      View the judgment here.

    • Chandler v Wright:

      The High Court has found that myriad claims against the former directors of BHS fall to be struck out in the context of the high-value, complex litigation being brought by the joint liquidators of the BHS companies against the former directors of those companies.

      Mr Justice Edwin Johnson, who heard the matter on appeal, has today handed down a judgment which will be of valuable assistance to practitioners in this area. The judgment reaffirms that causation and quantum are essential elements of a cause of action under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as they are for breach of duty claims under section 212, and that it is essential for liquidators to plead these elements – indeed it is “basic good practice, in terms of pleading” for them to do so. This pleading requirement will not be satisfied by an attempt to say that is it is obvious what the liquidators’ case is, or to argue that the case can be identified from some other source.

      Further, given the scale of the claims and complexity of the BHS litigation, Edwin Johnson J held, it is not acceptable for a case on the date of knowledge for the purposes of a claim under section 214 to be left “at large” on the pleadings. A specific date or dates must be identified – and it is “essential that the relevant pleading identifies what the case is on causation and quantum for each of the alternative dates relied upon as the Knowledge Date”.

      Daniel Lightman QC and Charlotte Beynon, instructed by Jan Mugerwa and Will Castledine of Olephant Solicitors, represented the successful Appellant in Chandler v Wright [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch). 

      To read the judgment, please click here.

    • Kennedy v The Official Receiver - High Court clarifies law on Bankruptcy Restrictions length:

      People facing bankruptcy, and their advisers, will gain more clarity on the long-term legal risks involved thanks to an appeal judgment handed down this morning.  In Kennedy v The Official Receiver [2022] EWHC 1973 (Ch), Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) clarified the Court’s approach to determining the length of a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (“BRO”) under S 281A and Schedule 4A of the Insolvency Act 1986.

      The BRO regime imposes restrictions (including disqualification from being a company director) for up to fifteen years on bankrupt individuals found to have committed some form of misconduct or neglect or financial responsibility. Previous case law established that the Court will determine the length of a BRO by applying  three brackets; the three brackets used in the context of directors’ disqualification as promulgated in Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd [1991] Ch.164: (i) over ten years for particularly serious cases; (ii) six to ten years for serious cases which do not merit the top bracket; and (iii) two to five years where the case is, relatively, not very serious.  In Kennedy, the first instance judge had placed Mr Kennedy’s conduct into the middle bracket, imposing an 8-year BRO on him.

      Mr Kennedy appealed to the High Court on the basis that in a number of previous decisions involving comparable or a greater degree of misconduct or culpability than his own, the conduct in question had been regarded as falling in the lowest bracket ([38]). 

      The Official Receiver contended that this approach was wrong in principle, maintaining that the Court should not, when considering the conduct of a bankrupt, compare and contrast the periods of disqualification in other cases, citing the directors’ disqualification case of Secretary of State v Rahman [2017] EWHC 2469 (Ch)  ([39)-[40]).

      However, the High Court accepted Mr Kennedy’s argument that, contrary to Rahman, but consistently with Re Cubelock Ltd [2001] BCC 523 and Sevenoaks Stationers itself, it is appropriate, at least until overt principles for applying a BRO have been developed, for a judge to review cases that have relevance given a similarity in the facts, and particularly in facts which go to the culpability of the bankrupt ([42]).  The High Court therefore overturned the 8-year BRO made against Mr Kennedy and replaced it with a 4-year BRO, in the lowest bracket.

      Max Marenbon represented the successful Appellant, instructed by Louise Delgado of Benchmark Solicitors LLP.

      To read the judgment, click here.

    • ITG Limited v Glennalla Properties Limited:

      John Machell QC acts for the appellants in ITG Limited v Glennalla Properties Limited in an appeal to the Privy Council. The case concerns issues relating to the insolvency of trusts including the priority between the indemnity claims of successive trustees, and between trustees and outside creditors.

    • Trafalgar v Hadley & Ors:

      In Trafalgar v Hadley & Ors Justin Higgo QC and Jamie Randall continue to represent the liquidator of Trafalgar in multi-party proceedings in the Chancery Division to recover funds misappropriated from a Cayman Islands segregated portfolio by its fiduciaries.

    • Re Keeping Kids Company; Official Receiver v Atkinson [2020] EWHC 2839 (Ch):

      Gareth Tilley acted as junior counsel for the Official Receiver in Re Keeping Kids Company; Official Receiver v Atkinson, the disqualification proceedings arising from the collapse of the charity Kids Company. These are believed to be the first-ever proceedings for disqualification of charity trustees as company directors and they raise questions about the standard to be applied to unpaid trustee directors, whether a remunerated charity CEO can or ought to be classified as a de facto company director, and what degree of latitude the trustee directors have in relation to the pursuit of charitable objects when the company is of doubtful solvency.

      Please see here for the judgment.

    • Nimat Halal Food Ltd & Anor v Patel & Anor [2020] EWHC 734 (Ch):

      In Nimat Halal Food Ltd v Patel [2020] EWHC 734 (Ch), Zoe O’Sullivan QC appeared for the creditor in an insolvency case in which Chief ICC Judge Briggs gave guidance on the personal liability of an administrator to pay costs following a creditor’s successful appeal against the

      Please click here to view the judgment. 

      Please click here to read an article for Lexis Nexis on the case.

    • Re Supercapital Ltd [2020] EWHC 1865 (Ch):

      James Mather acted for the Joint Administrators of an insolvent FCA-regulated international payment services provider in Re Supercapital Ltd [2020] EWHC 1865 (Ch). This involved the first application to seek a court’s approval for a distribution plan under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, on the basis of statutory trust principles applied in the context of other financial services regulations.

      Please click here to view the judgment.

    • Instant Access Properties v Rosser [2018] EWHC 756 (Ch):

      Lance Ashworth QC and Matthew Morrison secured judgment secured judgment for the First Defendant , Mr Rosser in Instant Access Properties v Rosser successfully defeating a fraudulent trading and breach of fiduciary duty claim of £35 million.

      Please click here to view the judgment. 

  • In The Press

News & Events

  • News

    Welcome to SerleShare

    SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More

    News

    A stellar year for Serle Court in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025 guide

    We are thrilled to announce another outstanding year of rankings and testimonials in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025.  Serle Court... Read More

  • Events

    FIRE Starters Global Summit

    Location: Conrad Hotel, Dublin, Ireland Read More

    Events

    ThoughtLeaders4 Private Client Summer School: The Ultimate Insider’s Guide

    Location: Downing College, Cambridge Read More

View all related news & events

"Serle Court houses a robust group of barristers for insolvency and restructuring work, particularly in offshore jurisdictions."

"a great set, stocked with magnificent barristers"
Legal 500

Barristers with this expertise

News & Events

  • News

    Welcome to SerleShare

    SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More

    News

    A stellar year for Serle Court in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025 guide

    We are thrilled to announce another outstanding year of rankings and testimonials in The Legal 500 UK Bar 2025.  Serle Court... Read More

  • Events

    FIRE Starters Global Summit

    Location: Conrad Hotel, Dublin, Ireland Read More

    Events

    ThoughtLeaders4 Private Client Summer School: The Ultimate Insider’s Guide

    Location: Downing College, Cambridge Read More

View all related news & events