Defining 'Proceedings' under LASPO Order and Solicitor's Lien Waiver in Cross-Border Liquidation: Candey Ltd v. Crumpler & Anor

Defining 'Proceedings' under LASPO Order and Solicitor's Lien Waiver in Cross-Border Liquidation: Candey Ltd v. Crumpler & Anor

1. Introduction

The case of Candey Ltd v. Crumpler & Anor (Liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd) ([2019] Bus LR 1901) adjudicated by the England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) on February 15, 2019, focused on two pivotal legal issues involving Candey Limited, a law firm, and the liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Limited (PHRL), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). This case provides significant insights into the interpretation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) Order concerning cross-border insolvency proceedings and the enforcement of solicitor's liens under the Solicitors Act 1974.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court was tasked with resolving two principal applications:

  • Exemption Issue: Determining whether the liquidators' application for recovery of a success fee under a conditional fee agreement (CFA) qualifies as "proceedings" exempted from the prohibition under Article 4(c) of the LASPO Order.
  • Lien Application: Addressing Candey's request for a charging order under section 73 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which was ultimately dismissed.

After extensive analysis, the Court concluded that the liquidators' application did not constitute "proceedings" under the LASPO Order's exemption, thereby allowing Candey to seek the recovery of its success fee. Additionally, the Court found that Candey had waived its solicitor's lien prior to the commencement of PHRL's liquidation, leading to the dismissal of the lien application.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents and statutory provisions to elucidate the Court's reasoning:

  • LAPSO Order: Specifically Article 4(c), which outlines exemptions to the prohibition on recovering success fees.
  • Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: Governs the provisions of the LASPO Order.
  • Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR): Governs the recognition and cooperation between courts in different jurisdictions during insolvency proceedings.
  • Solicitors Act 1974, Section 73: Provides mechanisms for solicitors to secure payment of their fees through charging orders.
  • Haymes v Cooper [1865] 33 BEAV. 431, Clifford Harris v Solland (No.1) [2004] EWHC 2488 (Ch), and others: These cases established foundational principles regarding solicitor's liens and the conditions under which such liens are waived.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning encompassed two main areas:

3.2.1 Exemption Issue

The core of the Exemption Issue hinged on whether the liquidators' pursuit of a success fee fell under the exemption of "proceedings" as defined by Article 4(c) of the LASPO Order. Candey argued that the recognition of PHRL's liquidation under the CBIR granted the liquidators the capacity akin to English liquidators, thereby fitting the exemption criteria.

Conversely, the Liquidators contended that A foreign liquidation recognized under the CBIR does not equate to being wound up under Part IV or V of the Insolvency Act 1986, thus excluding it from the LASPO Order's exemption. The High Court sided with the Liquidators, interpreting the term "acting in the capacity of" narrowly to exclude foreign liquidators who have merely been granted procedural relief without acquiring the substantive status of English liquidators.

3.2.2 Lien Application

The second issue revolved around Candey's attempt to enforce a solicitor's lien post-liquidation. Central to this was whether Candey had waived its lien through prior agreements and actions. The Court scrutinized the Fixed Fee Agreement (FFA) and the accompanying Deed of Charge, determining that Candey had indeed waived its lien by not reserving it explicitly and by obtaining a floating charge instead of a fixed charge. Post-liquidation, the absence of mentioning the lien in the proof of debt further solidified the waiver.

The Liquidators also raised concerns about potential abuse of process, arguing that Candey's late assertion of the lien was inconsistent with previously litigated positions. The Court rejected these arguments, maintaining that there was no prescriptive necessity for Candey to assert the lien earlier and that its late assertion did not amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

3.3 Impact

This judgment has significant implications for cross-border insolvency proceedings and the enforcement of solicitor's liens:

  • Clarification of "Proceedings" under LASPO: The Court's narrow interpretation of "acting in the capacity of" under the LASPO Order limits the scope of exemptions, particularly in cross-border contexts where liquidation proceedings are recognized procedurally but do not confer substantive English liquidation status.
  • Solicitor's Lien Enforcement: The thorough analysis of waiver conditions reinforces the necessity for solicitors to explicitly reserve their liens when entering into security agreements. Failure to do so may result in the forfeiture of lien rights.
  • Procedural Considerations in Liquidations: Liquidators must be vigilant in challenging any security interests that were not properly reserved or are inconsistent with pre-existing liens, ensuring equitable treatment of creditors.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Cross-Border Insolvency

Cross-border insolvency occurs when a company is insolvent in more than one jurisdiction. The CBIR facilitates cooperation between courts of different countries to manage such insolvencies efficiently.

4.2 LASPO Order's Exemption

The LASPO Order generally prohibits the recovery of success fees for solicitors. However, certain exemptions exist, such as proceedings initiated by liquidators under specific conditions. This case clarified that mere procedural recognition of foreign liquidation does not grant the exemption.

4.3 Solicitor's Lien

A solicitor's lien is a right to retain possession of a client's property until their fees are paid. This lien can be waived if the solicitor enters into certain agreements without explicitly reserving the lien.

4.4 Fixed vs. Floating Charge

- Fixed Charge: A security interest in specific assets, giving the creditor priority over those assets.
- Floating Charge: A security interest over a pool of changing assets, which crystallizes into a fixed charge upon certain events like liquidation.

5. Conclusion

The judgment in Candey Ltd v. Crumpler & Anor serves as a critical reference point for understanding the limitations of exemptions under the LASPO Order in the realm of cross-border insolvency. It underscores the importance of explicit reservations in security agreements to preserve solicitor's liens. The Court's clear delineation between procedural recognition and substantive insolvency status ensures that legal professionals must navigate cross-jurisdictional insolvencies with precision, safeguarding their rights through meticulous contractual language.

For practitioners, this case reinforces the necessity of:

  • Thoroughly understanding cross-border insolvency frameworks and their interplay with domestic laws.
  • Explicitly reserving liens in all relevant agreements to avoid unintended waiver.
  • Proactively addressing security interests during liquidation to ensure equitable creditor treatment.

Overall, the Judgment in Candey Ltd v. Crumpler & Anor significantly shapes the landscape of insolvency law, particularly in contexts involving international elements and professional fee recoveries.

Case Details

Year: 2019
Court: England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division)

Judge(s)

MR ANDREW HOCHHAUSER QC

Attorney(S)

DAVID LORD QC, DANIEL SAOUL and STEPHEN RYAN (instructed by Candey Law LLP) for Candey LimitedDAVID HOLLAND QC and STEPHEN ROBINS (instructed by Stephenson Harwood LLP for the Joint Liquidators

Comments