Nathan has an extensive insolvency practice and regularly acts for clients in both corporate and personal insolvency matters. He is experienced in handling broad range of insolvency applications including misfeasance claims, reviewable transactions, setting aside of statutory demands, restraining the presentation of winding up petitions and validation orders.

He is instructed by debtors, creditors and office holders and has a keen awareness of how insolvency legislation can be used to the best advantage of each.

Recent matters have included:

• Obtaining a retrospective administration order on behalf of office holders pursuant to paragraph 35(2) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in circumstances where there had been a potentially defective appointment of the office holders by a qualifying floating charge holder under paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• Acting for a liquidator at the trial of claims for breaches of fiduciary duty brought against two company directors by the liquidator of the company, the proceedings having been brought under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• Obtaining permission for a discharged bankrupt to challenge the remuneration and expenses of his trustee in bankruptcy under Rule 18.35 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.
• Obtaining a number of orders for the winding up of companies in administration in the absence of winding up petitions, pursuant to paragraph 79 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• Acting for trustees in bankruptcy in respect of applications for possession and sale of properties under section 335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 and section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, and under section 363 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
• Acting for a trustee in bankruptcy at the trial of an application made under section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of a transaction at an undervalue.

Nathan enjoys the variety of contractual disputes and has experience of acting for individuals, SMEs and larger businesses, so is well aware of the different issues which can be in play depending on the nature of the business and the need to tailor his advice and approach accordingly.

Recent matters have included:

• Credico Marketing Limited & Or v Lambert & Ors [2021] EWHC 1504 (QB). Led by Paul Casey of Fountain Court Chambers. Acted for two defendants in the six-day trial of a claim involving the enforceability of restrictive covenants in the direct marketing industry.
• Acting for an individual in proceedings against his former solicitors concerning the treatment of funds, involving claims for breach of contract, negligence and breach of trust.
• Representing a client in the successful defence of an application for summary judgment in a claim concerning sums allegedly due under a consultancy agreement.
• Advising a client in respect of a claim brought against it for fees allegedly owing to a recruitment agency.
• Acting for a SME at the fast track trial of a claim for outstanding sums owing in relation to the provision of security services at hospitality venues.

Nathan’s focus on insolvency and commercial matters means there are significant areas of overlap with other areas of law, one being corporate law. In advising on company law matters he is able to bring his experience in other areas of law to bear to ensure that potential issues are identified and addressed, whether or not litigation has commenced.

Recent matters have included:

• Advising on the applicability of the Duomatic principle in the context of amendments to a company’s articles of association.
• Advising on the consequences for shareholders resulting from the restructuring of a SME.

Nathan acts for clients in obtaining and resisting applications for injunctions.

He has particular experience of doing so where there is an insolvency angle, such as injunctions restraining the presentation and advertisement of winding up petitions, but also in other areas of law such as property law, for example acting for a client in successfully opposing an application brought by the owner of a commercial property who asserted an easement over a neighbouring residential property.

• LLM, University College London
• MA (Cantab) Law, Churchill College, Cambridge

• Best Individual Oralist, Price Media Law Moot Court Competition, 2012

• Cambridge University Law Society, Master of Moots, 2010-2011

• Chancery Bar Association

‘Politicians, beware the investigative journalist: Tim Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited’ [2016] Ent LR 27(2), 74-75

‘Unexpected, illogical and unfair: the distinction between who can and who cannot sue for breaches of financial services rules’ [2017] BJIB & FL 32(9), 548-550

‘Getting consumer rights right’ [2017] NLJ 167, 13-14

‘Section 21 Notices and the Requirement to Provide a Gas Safety Certificate’ [2019] L & T Review, 23(6), 220-223’