A - Appointment
7/5/20
GREGORY v ARG (MANSFIELD) LTD [2020] EWHC 1133 (Ch)
In a case where a company is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, written consent to the appointment of an administrator must be obtained from the relevant regulator and lodged at the latest by (and with) filing of the notice of appointment [107]. If this is not done it is at least arguable that the appointment is a nullity [119]. Although the directors of the Company purportedly appointed administrators without FCA consent, consent was later obtained and it was appropriate to appoint the administrators with retrospective effect [121].
7/2/20
RE STATEBOURNE (CRYOGENIC) LTD [2020] EWHC 231 (Ch)
Notice of appointment of administrators filed one day late under para 28(2) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 was declared valid.
4/2/20
RE CARTER MOORE SOLICITORS LTD [2020] EWHC 186 (Ch)
Failing to select a correct drop down box in CE filing a notice of appointment of administrators had been a mere error of procedure. The notice was declared valid and the appointment had been effective.
14/1/20
LONDON CAPITAL AND FINANCE PLC (IN ADMINISTRATION) v LONDON OIL & GAS LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2020] EWHC 35 (Ch)
Where the validity of administrators’ appointment was challenged, the court made an order terminating the existing appointments and appointing the same administrators afresh. An application for the new appointment to be retrospective was adjourned generally with liberty to restore if it became necessary to seek retrospective validation.
11/11/19
WOODSIDE v KEYWORKER HOMES (NORTH WEST) LTD [2019] EWHC 3499 (Ch)
An out of court appointment of administrators by company directors was valid. When considering the requirement in para 28(2) of Sch B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that the appointment should not be made after the period of ten business days beginning with the date on which the notice of intention to appoint is filed, the day on which the notice of intention to appoint is filed is to be disregarded (not following on this point Re SJ Henderson & Company, 2019) [33]. A directors’ notice of intention to appoint may validly be filed out of court office hours under the Practice Direction on Electronic Working [35] (not following Re Skeggs Beef Ltd, 2019 on this point [62]). The restriction in para 8.1 of the Insolvency Practice Direction on filing of notices of intention to appoint electronically is to be read as limited to appointments by qualifying charge holders, which continues to be governed by Insolvency Rules 3.20 - 3.22.
1/8/17
RANDHAWA v TURPIN (NO. 2) (RE BW ESTATES LTD) [2017] EWCA Civ 1201
A sole director with a 75% shareholding purported to appoint joint administrators. The company’s articles required a quorum of two directors for a board meeting and two members for a general meeting. 25% of the company’s shares were registered in the name of a dissolved company. The appointment was held to be invalid as there had been no second director to make up a quorum. The company was not a single member company because the word “member” in the articles included any registered shareholder. Nothing in the Insolvency Act allowed the company to act other than as required by its articles. The Duomatic principle (that the assent of all shareholders is as binding as a resolution in general meeting) did not apply as it requires consent of all registered shareholders. It had not been an abuse of process for the creditors to make the application challenging the appointment, nor were they prevented from challenging the appointment by estoppel or acquiescence.
18/11/15
RE ARMSTRONG BRANDS LTD [2015] EWHC 3303 (Ch)
A company debenture was validly executed as a deed for the purpose of s 44 Companies Act 2006. It was signed by the company’s secretary and another person. That other person was not a director at the date of the debenture but the evidence showed that he had signed it at a date when he was a director. It did not matter that the transaction completed later when the director signatory was no longer a director. An administrator had therefore been validly appointed under the debenture.
10/3/15
PUI-KWAN v KAM-HO [2015] EWHC 621 (Ch)
A meeting of directors at which it had been resolved to place a company into administration had been inquorate and as a result the company had not validly entered into administration.
2/3/15
RANDHAWA v TURPIN (RE BW ESTATES LTD) [2015] EWHC 517 (Ch)
Administrators appointed by a director by the out of court procedure had not acted improperly in accepting the appointment and were not to be deprived of remuneration on that basis. Issues as to the level of their remuneration would be the subject of a further hearing at which the costs of the application would be determined.
25/10/13
CLOSEGATE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT (DURHAM) LTD V MCLEAN [2013] EWHC 3237 (Ch)
Directors have authority to cause a company to apply to challenge an administrator’s appointment and do not necessarily have to offer to indemnify the company in respect of the costs. On the facts the challenge failed as the lender which appointed the administrators was not estopped from appointing.
22/5/13
HSBC BANK PLC v TAMBROOK JERSEY LTD [2013] EWCA Civ 576
Considers when a court can assist a foreign court under s 426 Insolvency Act 1986 by appointing an administrator of a company whose centre of main interests is abroad. Overruled the decision of the court below that the English court had no power to appoint administrators in respect of the Jersey registered company at the request of the Royal Court of Jersey because no insolvency proceedings were pending or contemplated in Jersey.
18/3/13
IN THE MATTER OF CARE PEOPLE LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2013] EWHC 1734 (Ch)
Appointment of administrators by a qualifying floating chargeholder had been defective because demand was only 6 minutes before the appointment was made, giving the company no time to respond. But there had been no prejudice to the company since it had not been in a position to pay and creditors might have been prejudiced if the administration did not continue. The appointment was therefore declared valid and the defect waived.
10/8/12
IN THE MATTER OF EUROMASTER LTD [2012] EWHC 2356 (Ch), [2013] Bus LR 466
Appointment of administrators over 10 business days after filing notice of intention to appoint administrators contrary to Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.B1 para.28(2) did not render the appointment void but was an irregularity capable of cure under Insolvency Rules 1986 r.7.55.