Cookies on Pinsent Masons website

This website uses cookies to allow us to see how the site is used. The cookies cannot identify you. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with this

If you want to use the sites without cookies or would like to know more, you can do that here.

BHS successfully applies for winding-up order against its shareholder

  • BHS has successfully applied to wind-up its shareholder RAL for RAL's inability to repay a circa £6m inter-company debt, despite cross claims from RAL
  • Creditors should not be dissuaded from issuing winding-up petitions against insolvent companies unless there is a genuine and serious cross claim or the debt is genuinely disputed
  • BHS Group Ltd (in administration) v Retail Acquisitions Ltd [2017] EWHC 1057 (Ch)

05 Jun 2017

Speed Read

LEGAL UPDATE: The UK High Court has made an order to wind-up Retail Acquisitions Ltd (RAL) on the application of its subsidiary BHS for failure to pay an intercompany debt. The case highlights the importance of the wording of the loan instrument, as set-off was not permitted despite it being the practice between the parties prior to the insolvency of BHS, the fact that the mutuality must be required for any set-off claim and applies the insolvency tests in Eurosail.


BHS was owed £6,177,000 by its shareholder RAL. The loan was repayable in instalments and if RAL failed to pay any instalments the whole sum, plus default interest, became payable. The loan instrument said, amongst other things, that set off was not permitted and that any amendments or variations to the loan instrument had to be made in writing. On 21 July 2016 a loan instalment of £100,000 became due and after RAL failed to make the payment BHS issued a winding-up petition.

RAL claimed that the set-off clause in the loan instrument should be "ignored": RAL was due monies from BHS under a management services agreement (MSA) and in practice these payments had been netted off at all times against the instalments due under the loan instrument. RAL argued that the practice was so extensive that the court should treat the no set-off clause as of "no effect". RAL did not give any evidence, other than an envisaged right of set off, that there had been a mutual mistake and the loan instrument should therefore be rectified.  The judge found that from an objective standpoint the loan instrument represented the intentions of the parties and, therefore, the no set-off clause was binding, notwithstanding previous practice.

RAL argued that even if the no set-off clause was binding that it had a genuine and serious cross claim against BHS in relation to amounts due from BHS, under the terms of the MSA, which exceeded the amount of the instalments due. The judge acknowledged that this was a ground for striking out and dismissing a winding-up petition, however, in this case the cross claim would fail as the invoices which RAL relied on had been issued to another company within the BHS group. Set-off requires mutuality and here there was no mutuality because the parties to the claim and cross-claim were different.

Finally, RAL argued that it was not insolvent- the court disagreed. The judge found that it was settled law (following Eurosail) that the balance sheet test for insolvency and the cash-flow test stand side by side and that the cash-flow test looks to the near future as well as the present. The judge ruled that RAL had no present income stream from which to pay the monies due to BHS, and this could not be described as a "momentary inability to pay as a result of temporary illiquidity". RAL also owed a significant sum to Arcadia. Although it wasn't strictly necessary to rule upon whether RAL was balance sheet insolvent, after the finding of cash flow insolvency, the court went on to rule that RAL was also balance sheet insolvent as it was unable to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the value of assets it claimed to have.

Sally Williamson is a restructuring expert at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com