Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 AUGUST 2026

Braganza (Still) Doesn't Bite

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

The Court of Appeal has partially reversed a High Court decision in a case examining whether a chargee's appointment of administrators was invalid due to improper purpose, specifically where debt acquisition followed a failed takeover bid. The judgment clarifies the boundaries of Braganza-style rationality duties in secured lending enforcement and explores when the equitable 'proper purpose' doctrine may constrain a creditor's right to appoint administrators under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

Summary

The Court of Appeal in Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Baker & Anor1 has partially reversed the High Court's decision to strike out a challenge to the validity of the appointment of administrators over the Glint Pay companies. The Court of Appeal upheld the findings that the information covenant extended to the company's assets generally and that non-compliance constituted an event of default. However, it held that the High Court was wrong to strike out the claim and that there was a realistic prospect of establishing that the administrators' appointment was invalid due to the appointor's improper purpose, and remitted that issue to trial.

On the central Braganza point, the Court of Appeal confirmed that no broad rationality or reasonableness overlay applies to a chargee's fundamental enforcement rights. The appellants no longer pressed a full Braganza-style duty2 on appeal. The court did, however, accept a narrower implied term: that ancillary powers such as information request

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

© Copyright 2026. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from