[1][2] The original decision by Registrar Jones was widely reported ([2015] EWHC 2893 (Ch), [2015] BCC 661, [2015] All ER (D) 45 (Aug)) in relation to the extensive guidance and consideration given to the issues.

In a detailed and comprehensive judgment Registrar Jones reviewed the existing authorities and law relating to wrongful trading.

The court further held that the liquidators only need prove that the directors knew insolvent litigation was unavoidable prior to the commencement of winding-up.

However the directors did have a right to know the case that they had to meet, and so the liquidators would not be able to claim a different date period at trial to the one identified in pleadings and evidence in support.

[7] Most commentators responded positively to the decision, noting the clarity with which it set out the relevant constituent elements of liability, and provided important clarification of the issues relating to burden of proof.

[3] He held that notwithstanding the missing financial information, it was nevertheless possible for the court to perform "increase in net deficiency" calculations.

The honesty of the directors was one of a number of factors which the Registrar referred to, and he was entitled to consider those as part of his balancing exercise when assessing compensation.

The deputy judge was persuaded that the Registrar had erred in trying to apply an analysis which had not in fact been advanced by either litigant, and which had not been the subject of counsels' submissions at trial.

The parties would have been entitled to raise legitimate objections to this approach, either on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence on key issues, or alternatively, if that analysis was followed through to a proper conclusion then there would arguably have been no compensation payable.