Tweet
Some advise please.
I have obtained a third party debt order which orders the bank (third party) associated with the defendant that owes me money, should not pay the debtor (defendant) any money unless it exceeds the amount he owes me, and a hearing is to take place in July to ascertain whether this money should be paid to me or not. However the bank have written to me stating the account has a zero balance and they will therefore not be represented at the hearing.
My question is this. The order states that any money in that account should not be paid to he debtor unless it exceeds the amount owed, and because the hearing isn't until July, the balance could indeed change in that period. For the bank to take this immediate stance of not even being willing to be represented even though we are still in early June seems to be a failure to acknowledge or be willing to comply with the courts orders. The order doesn't say to the third party 'turn up if you feel like it'!!
Also as the company is still trading (active on companies house) my expectation is that whilst the company director could detach himself from his companies debt, I thought if a company continues trading whilst insolvent, then the director becomes liable for any company debts, and or if the director has paid himself from his companies account, after the date my judgement order was granted, this effectively qualifies as wrongful trading, i.e. putting his own interests before those of company creditors.
Section 214 of the Insolvency Act refers to ‘Wrongful Trading’ which is the term used to describe the actions of a company director who, knowing the business was insolvent, failed to put the interests of creditors first.
Wrongful trading is not something conducted out of connivance or willful desire to defraud. Rather it is about ignorance of due procedure, and a failure to understand the rules.
For example, a director who understands that the company is insolvent might pay himself out of the last money in the account simply because he needs to pay his mortgage on time. That action qualifies as wrongful trading because it’s putting his own interests before those of company creditors.
Is the bank obliged to advise and or acknowledge that money was in the company account after the date the debt became due, in which case would this in itself not prove wrongful trading?
I have obtained a third party debt order which orders the bank (third party) associated with the defendant that owes me money, should not pay the debtor (defendant) any money unless it exceeds the amount he owes me, and a hearing is to take place in July to ascertain whether this money should be paid to me or not. However the bank have written to me stating the account has a zero balance and they will therefore not be represented at the hearing.
My question is this. The order states that any money in that account should not be paid to he debtor unless it exceeds the amount owed, and because the hearing isn't until July, the balance could indeed change in that period. For the bank to take this immediate stance of not even being willing to be represented even though we are still in early June seems to be a failure to acknowledge or be willing to comply with the courts orders. The order doesn't say to the third party 'turn up if you feel like it'!!
Also as the company is still trading (active on companies house) my expectation is that whilst the company director could detach himself from his companies debt, I thought if a company continues trading whilst insolvent, then the director becomes liable for any company debts, and or if the director has paid himself from his companies account, after the date my judgement order was granted, this effectively qualifies as wrongful trading, i.e. putting his own interests before those of company creditors.
Section 214 of the Insolvency Act refers to ‘Wrongful Trading’ which is the term used to describe the actions of a company director who, knowing the business was insolvent, failed to put the interests of creditors first.
Wrongful trading is not something conducted out of connivance or willful desire to defraud. Rather it is about ignorance of due procedure, and a failure to understand the rules.
For example, a director who understands that the company is insolvent might pay himself out of the last money in the account simply because he needs to pay his mortgage on time. That action qualifies as wrongful trading because it’s putting his own interests before those of company creditors.
Is the bank obliged to advise and or acknowledge that money was in the company account after the date the debt became due, in which case would this in itself not prove wrongful trading?
