Julie has over 35 years’ experience dealing with all areas of insolvency with a particular focus on contentious insolvency, banking and commercial litigation, both nationally and on an international level. She also has wide experience of partnership and shareholder disputes.
Julie has conducted large scale fraud actions for corporate clients or as part of an insolvency procedure involving pre-action injunctions (search and seize orders, freezing orders, disclosure orders) and the tracing of assets on an international scale.
Julie is keen to work with insolvency practitioners and accountants (either the firm or in relation to its clients) on any restructuring and insolvency related matters. She can assist companies, partnerships and individuals in relation to any financial restructuring and insolvency issues. She also deals with companies and individuals in relation to partnership and shareholder disputes, and particularly enjoys dealing with fraud actions where there is an element of speed and the tracing of assets.
Over the years Julie has represented clients as the lead partner in relation to matters where the judgments have been reported as they either create new law or are of particular relevance including:
In this case it was held that the doctrine of marshalling contained an exception to the “Common Debtor” rule where a debtor owed money to two or more creditors and had a right between himself and a debtor who owed money to only one creditor to ensure that the latter bore the ultimate liability. This case decided new law in the area of marshalling.
This case examined the appropriate procedure to be adopted in contempt cases falling under the Insolvency Act 1986 which, due to the unsatisfactory and unclear position was aid to benefit early consideration by the Rules Committee.
The Court considered the proper characterisation of payments made by a company to its directors in return for their subscribing to shares as apart of a tax avoidance scheme. The Court decided that the payments amounted to remuneration, rejecting arguments that they were lawful distributions to shareholders, discounts on shares or commission. It also doubted whether the doctrine of common mistake could apply where the parties on each side of a contract were effectively the same people.