preferred payment insolvency

Original Post:

If you ask a question, you might get advice!
 
Upvote 0

Lisa Thomas

Business Member
Business Listing
Apr 20, 2015
5,462
1
1,444
www.parkerandrews.co.uk
Happy to add my opinion if you would like a second opinion after speaking with Lee. Feel free to dm me, or call my mobile.
 
Upvote 0
Key issue is a preference arises when it is a payment or benefit is given to a creditor who is put into a better position, subject to the company giving it, being influenced by a desire to give rise to that effect. (Section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986)
 
Upvote 0

jimbof

Free Member
Apr 11, 2020
487
133
Key issue is a preference arises when it is a payment or benefit is given to a creditor who is put into a better position, subject to the company giving it, being influenced by a desire to give rise to that effect. (Section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986)
I'd never read the Act, thanks for sharing. It's interesting as the highlighted portion would seem to be a huge get-out (how do you prove the desire was to put them into a better position?). I see it is assumed automatically to be true though if they are connected to the company other than by virtue purely of being an employee, unless there is clear proof they weren't influenced.
 
Upvote 0

Lisa Thomas

Business Member
Business Listing
Apr 20, 2015
5,462
1
1,444
www.parkerandrews.co.uk
I'd never read the Act, thanks for sharing. It's interesting as the highlighted portion would seem to be a huge get-out (how do you prove the desire was to put them into a better position?). I see it is assumed automatically to be true though if they are connected to the company other than by virtue purely of being an employee, unless there is clear proof they weren't influenced.
Exactly. It's pretty much a slam dunk where Directors have preferred themselves.
 
Upvote 0

louis292

Free Member
Feb 3, 2026
29
11
I'd never read the Act, thanks for sharing. It's interesting as the highlighted portion would seem to be a huge get-out (how do you prove the desire was to put them into a better position?). I see it is assumed automatically to be true though if they are connected to the company other than by virtue purely of being an employee, unless there is clear proof they weren't influenced.
Proving that "desire to prefer" is notoriously tricky in court when dealing with unrelated third parties. Usually, liquidators have to rely on circumstantial evidence—like a sudden change in regular payment terms, or paying off a specific supplier while ignoring critical utility bills. It rarely comes down to a smoking gun email; it's almost always about looking at the company's behavior right before everything collapsed.
 
Upvote 0

Newchodge

Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,718
    8
    8,024
    Newcastle
    Proving that "desire to prefer" is notoriously tricky in court when dealing with unrelated third parties. Usually, liquidators have to rely on circumstantial evidence—like a sudden change in regular payment terms, or paying off a specific supplier while ignoring critical utility bills. It rarely comes down to a smoking gun email; it's almost always about looking at the company's behavior right before everything collapsed.
    Or paying a debt which is subject to a personal guarantee
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lisa Thomas
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles