Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 JULY 2012

BXL Services Decision: Clarity On Appointing Administrators

Readers will be aware of the conflicting authorities on the effect of directors omitting to give notice of their intention to appoint administrators to the company.

United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Andrew Foster
Andrew Foster
Natalie Rodriguez
Natalie Rodriguez
Andrew Twomey
Andrew Twomey
Renuka Sharma
Renuka Sharma
Brendan Myers
Brendan Myers
Author LinkedIn connections

Readers will be aware of the conflicting authorities on the effect of directors omitting to give notice of their intention to appoint administrators to the company or any of the other persons listed at rule 2.20 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.

In Hill v Stokes (2010) and Virtual Purple Professional Services Ltd (2011), it was held that an appointment of administrators was not rendered invalid when directors failed to give notice of their intention to appoint to the company or to landlords who were distraining. However, in Minmar (2011) and Msaada Group (2011), the courts decided that failure to give notice to the company or the supervisor of a voluntary arrangement meant that the subsequent appointment of administrators was invalid.

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.

See more popular content from