Kate has a well-established High Court restructuring and insolvency practice. She is ranked as a top-tier junior in Legal 500 2017 for commercial, banking, insolvency and Chancery law.
Kate has a busy and well-established insolvency practice, regularly being instructed in the Chancery Division and Companies Court in all matters of corporate and personal insolvency, including transactions at an undervalue, preferences, misfeasance claims, wrongful trading, allegations of sham, trusts, procedural issues, seeking injunctive relief and enforcement.
In terms of injunctive relief, Kate has experience in both applying for and responding to applications restraining presentation and advertisement of winding up petitions, alongside commercial injunctions, this includes obtaining injunctive relief on behalf of a Trustee in Bankruptcy in proceedings with a foreign jurisdictional element.
In the High Court Kate has experience of appearing in contested winding up proceedings, including disputes as to whether a debt is due and owing; disputes as to liquidated damages clauses; and disputes concerning shareholding.
Kate also has experience in the law of Receivership, the appointment of Receivers, and their duties. She recently acted for a Receiver, in proceedings brought by an individual alleging breach of the duty of good faith and seeking injunctive relief. The application for injunctive relief was refused and the underlying claim against the Receiver struck out.
In addition to her advocacy experience Kate is also regularly instructed to advise on paper, including giving advice as to the validity of trust deeds and whether trust deeds, or other agreements, can be determined to be a ‘sham’.
Part of Kate’s insolvency practice concerns acting for financial institutions when personal guarantees have been given by company directors. Through this strand of her practice she has developed significant experience of dealing with personal guarantees. Further, Kate’s experience of property law compliments her insolvency practice and assists in dealing with issues of security. She has experience in setting aside charges held against property.
Cases and Work of Note
- Robert v (1) Palfrey and Lemon (2) Talipova  EWHC 135 (Ch): Acting for the Trustee in Bankruptcy in a dispute over the ownership of shares, notably whether the bankrupt’s shares had been charged as security or whether the alleged documentation had been produced after the bankruptcy and accordingly whether the alleged agreement was a ‘sham’.
- Reed v (1) Samuel-Camps (2) Bank of Ireland  EWHC 2314 (Ch): acting for the First Respondent Receiver, appointed by the Bank of Ireland, in proceedings brought by Mr Reed alleging breach of the duty of goof faith by the First Respondent and seeking injunctive relief to prevent the sale of the property concerned. Successful in defending the application for injunctive relief and getting the claim against the Receiver struck out.
- Presently instructed by a construction company to seek injunctive relief restraining the presentation of a winding up petition which was threatened by a sub-contractor arising out of a dispute in the building of hotel in Leicester Square. The value of the dispute is c.£8m.
- Instructed on behalf of a national bank to seek urgent injunctive relief restraining the presentation and/or advertisement of a winding up petition, which was complicated by issues surrounding service and the instruction of High Court Enforcement Officers.
- Advising the Trustee in Bankruptcy as to ownership of properties in this jurisdiction allegedly held by companies incorporated in Bermuda, despite the companies having been dissolved at the point the properties were purchased. The matter is further complicated by two sets of Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings, both before and after the purchase of the properties. Competing claims to the properties arise from the bankrupt; the Trustee in Bankruptcy; the Crown Prosecution Service; and bona vacantia.
- Instructed for the Second Defendant in a matter in which the Claimant has judgment against the First Defendant, secured against two properties. The Second Defendant has a prior charge secured against the main property, the validity of which is disputed by the Claimant. The Claimant seeks to set aside the charge in favour of the Second Defendant as a sham, alternatively as a transaction defrauding creditors pursuant to s.423, or in the further alternative to limit the sums secured by the charge.
- Instructed to represent the First to Seventh Respondents, who were creditors with funds invested in a litigation funder. Application to determine whether funds held by the company (now in liquidation) were impressed with a trust and held for the Respondents, owing to investment being made in specific litigation which had produced the returned monies currently held, or whether the monies were not ring-fenced and were simply company monies. The Applicants were effectively seeking a Berkeley Applegate order via the backdoor by seeking authority to use the monies possibly impressed with a trust to present a contrary argument at the final hearing. Such an order was refused.
- Instructed to represent the bankrupt and the supervisor of his IVA. The Applicants sought to challenge the decision of the supervisor, on the basis of material irregularity, to only allow the Second Applicant to vote in the sum of £1 in the First Respondent’s IVA. The Second Applicant contended that it was a creditor in the sum of either £33million or at least £5million, owing to a judgment of the Jersey court. The Respondents disputed that the Second Applicant was a creditor able to vote in the IVA as their debt is (a) contingent on the success of litigation on-going in the High Court; and (b) any claim they had to assets in the hands of the First Respondent (by virtue of an agreement entered into in the Isle of Man) was proprietary.
- Acted for joint administrators seeking a delayed move into liquidation (to allow the main asset to be disposed of pursuant to paragraph 83) when a major creditor voted against the administrators’ proposals and directions were needed.
- Instructed to act for the Trustee in Bankruptcy in five sets of connected proceedings, involving numerous parties and complex disputes of law and fact relating to trust deeds, declarations as to property ownership and transactions at an undervalue, with approximately £2m in dispute.
- Advising the Trustee in Bankruptcy as to the validity of a legal charge placed over a property by the Bankrupt’s former solicitors and dealing with the issue of preference.
- Acting for the Trustee in Bankruptcy, seeking injunctive relief in respect of properties and land held by the Bankrupt in Norway. The bankrupt sought to allege that certain properties were owned by a Company and disputed beneficial ownership. Issues of determining beneficial ownership in property situated outside of the EU arising.