Report comment

He is entitled to his view, but to describe the carve out on recoverability as oppressive to defendants is in my opinion a heavy overstatement which betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the position of office holders charged with pursuing appropriate claims.

Insolvency litigation is about getting returns for creditors, yes, but the prospect of a defendant to, for example, a wrongful trading or misfeasance claim having to meet a contribution to the costs of pursuit is what, very often, keeps directors of limited companies honest. If there are no teeth to the threat of being held to account for breaches of duty which put a company into insolvency, or deeper into insolvency (so there is nothing left in the company's assets with which to fund recovery action) there is little or no financial disincentive to the wrongdoing.

If costs and premiums are not recoverable for insolvency litigation it will adversely affect the number of claims brought, and will both reduce the number of claims brought and the net return on those claims as only the damages / compensation / returns for the actual loss will be available with which to pay for the action.

In short, far from the carve out being oppressive, it is there to recognise the unique circumstances of the insolvency practitioner claimant, to deter wrongdoing and protect creditors and the public at large. The same naysayers who oppose the carve out now will doubtless be the loudest critics if the carve out is lost and inevitably insolvency practitioners and the lawyers they instruct have to decline, therefore, to take action.