comment 0

Case law: Insolvency, confiscation orders and welfare services

Some new law courtesy of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting via their WLR Daily service.

In re Rodenstock GmbH [2011] EWHC 1104;  [2011] WLR (D)  150

COMPANY — Scheme of arrangement — Foreign corporation — Company incorporated in Germany — Company having no centre of main interest or establishment in England — Whether company “liable to be wound up” — Whether court having jurisdiction to sanction proposed scheme — Companies Act 2006, s 895 — Council Regulation (EC) No 3046/2000 — Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

Neither Council Regulation (EC) No 3046/2000 on insolvency proceedings (“the Insolvency Regulation”) nor Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“the Judgments Regulation”) had narrowed the court’s jurisdiction in relation to the sanctioning of schemes of arrangement, by impacting restrictively on the circumstances when a company was “liable to be wound up”.

Regina v Bajwa and others [2011] EWCA Crim 1093;  [2011] WLR (D)  151

CRIME — Sentence — Confiscation order — Defendants convicted of conspiracy to evade duty on imported counterfeit cigarettes  — Assessment of “criminal lifestyle” and period of time over which offence committed  — Whether necessary for Crown to prove that individual defendants involved in conspiracy for period of at least six months — Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss 6(4), 75(2), 76(4)(5)

In assessing, for the purposes of imposing a confiscation order, whether a defendant had a criminal lifestyle the question of whether the offence had been committed over a period of at least six months related to each particular defendant’s part in the offence.

Regina (G) v Lambeth London Borough Council and another [2011] EWCA Civ 526;  [2011] WLR (D)  152

Children — Children in need — Welfare services — Child aged 16 under supervision order identified by member of council’s youth offending service as a “child in need” — Child provided with accommodation by council’s housing department when aged 16 and 17 — No referral to council’s social services department — Whether “former relevant child”on reaching adulthood — Whether continuing duties owed by council as children’s services authority — Children Act 1989, s 23C(1) (as inserted by Children (Leaving Care) Act 2002, s 2(4))

Accommodation ostensibly provided to a child aged 16 to 17 by a council as a local housing authority was to be deemed to be accommodation provided by it as a children’s services authority where the child met the criteria of a “child in need” within section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 and the actions of a social worker working for the council in a different team could properly be imputed to the social services division. Consequently on reaching adulthood that person became a “former relevant child” within section 23C(1) of the 1989 Act, as inserted, and was owed the duties set out in that section.


Advertisements
Filed under: Law reporting

About the Author

Posted by

I am a law reporter employed by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. I write law reports for the Official Law Reports, the Weekly Law Reports and the Public and Third Sector Reports. I also write on a freelance basis for the Road Traffic Reports and the Times Reports.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s