The One Collection Real Estate Ltd v Insolvency & Law Ltd

Rule 12.1 of the Insolvency Rules applies the CPR and related Practice Directions to winding-up petitions with necessary modifications. Accordingly, Practice Direction 57AA applies to such proceedings, and “claim” includes the originating process constituted by a petition.

Where proceedings have significant links with more than one circuit, the court should select the location with the most significant links. A strong regional connection, specialist judicial availability and materially earlier listing justified transfer to Newcastle.

Insolvency & Law Ltd issued a winding-up petition against The One Collection Real Estate Ltd in London. The company applied to transfer the proceedings to Newcastle and sought a validation order so that it could continue trading.

The company argued that Practice Direction 57AA required issue in Newcastle because the petition had its significant links there. The petitioner argued that a winding-up petition was not a “claim” for that purpose. The court considered the interaction between rule 12.1 of the Insolvency Rules, Practice Direction 57AA and CPR rule 30.

1. Transfer ordered. The winding-up petition was transferred from London to Newcastle, with final determination directed for 25 April 2023.
2. Rule 12.1 of the Insolvency Rules makes the CPR and related Practice Directions applicable to insolvency proceedings with necessary modifications, unless disapplied or inconsistent. Practice Direction 57AA therefore applies to winding-up proceedings issued in the Insolvency and Companies List, despite their not being commenced under CPR Parts 7 or 8.
3. In this context, “claim” is a generic term for the originating process by which proceedings are commenced and relief is sought. It includes a winding-up petition. Schedule 4 paragraph 1(2) of the Insolvency Rules, concerning service by reference to CPR Part 6, was not a deeming provision making a petition a claim form.
4. The petition had overwhelmingly stronger links with Newcastle. The company, its directors, legal representatives and accountants were based there. The relevant business, contract, rent and property-related events were also centred there. The petitioner’s London base, as assignee of the alleged debt, carried less weight.
5. The CPR rule 30 transfer factors and Practice Direction 57AA paragraph 3.3 also favoured Newcastle. The debt was small, the issues were simple, a specialist judge was available, and Newcastle could list the petition materially sooner. The parties’ conflicting wishes balanced out, and no material public-interest, facilities or international factor arose.
6. The petitioner was ordered to pay the company’s costs of the transfer and validation applications. The validation-order judgment was not transcribed.