Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 JULY 2016

Challenging Fees Agreed By UK Administrators

Taylor Wessing
Explore more from Taylor Wessing

The administrators appointed to Hellas Telecommunications instructed Slaughter & May to act during the course of the administration and agreed their fees.

United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Amy Patterson
Amy Patterson

Key points

  • Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
  • Administrators can agree solicitors' fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
  • The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment

The facts

The administrators appointed to Hellas Telecommunications instructed Slaughter & May to act during the course of the administration and agreed their fees. One invoice was agreed and paid after they ceased to be in office. Hellas was wound up, liquidators appointed and the liquidators applied to court for a direction that Slaughter & May's fees be assessed under rule 7.34 (subsequently repealed and replaced with 7.34A).

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.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Woodville Collapse And Regulatory Reform – Litigation Funding In The Spotlight

The collapse of Woodville Consultants Ltd has exposed significant vulnerabilities in the rapidly expanding litigation funding market, which operates largely outside mainstream financial regulation. With nearly £300 million owed to retail investors and questionable lending practices to law firms, the case raises critical questions about investor protection, regulatory oversight, and the future balance of power in funded litigation.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
RPC
RPC
Article

A Guide To Misfeasance Claims Against Directors

Directors of insolvent companies may face misfeasance claims when liquidators or administrators investigate potential misuse of company funds, breaches of fiduciary duties, or prioritizing personal interests over creditors. Understanding the legal framework under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, common allegations, and available defenses is crucial for directors navigating these serious investigations that can result in personal liability and disqualification.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Weightmans LLP
Weightmans LLP
Article

Hunkemöller: English Court Stays Liability Management Exercise Litigation Pending Judgment In Parallel New York Proceedings

The English High Court has stayed proceedings challenging Hunkemöller's liability management exercise pending judgment in related New York litigation. This decision examines the limitations of multi-jurisdictional litigation strategies in cross-border restructurings and the enforceability of exclusive jurisdiction clauses for beneficial noteholders. The ruling provides critical guidance on the sequencing of claims across different jurisdictions when challenging complex liability management exercises.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
A&O Shearman
A&O Shearman
Article

What Is An Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA)? A Guide For Debtors And Creditors

An Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) is a formal debt solution that allows individuals to repay creditors through affordable monthly payments over five to six years, with remaining balances typically written off. This legal alternative to bankruptcy requires approval from creditors holding at least 75% of the debt value and is supervised by a licensed insolvency practitioner throughout its duration.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Tees Law
Tees Law
Article

High Court Rules That Administrators May Be Able To Pay Administration Expenses And Litigation Funding Ahead Of “super Priority” Moratorium Debts

The High Court has determined that administrators can enter into litigation funding arrangements allowing funders to be repaid from litigation proceeds ahead of moratorium debts with "super priority" status, provided this aligns with the administration's purpose and the administrators' duties. This ruling addresses a critical question about the interplay between protected moratorium creditors and the practical realities of funding litigation in insolvency proceedings.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Article

UK Restructuring & Insolvency Market 2026: Early Action By Funders And Directors Alike Is The New Survival Strategy

Several market commentary pieces this week, including an Insider UK survey of UK restructuring market professionals (15 January 2026), amongst others, suggest that during 2026 the UK economy will not collapse, but shift towards a more complex reality where timing, creditor behaviour, and asset focus are key. RSM UK’s Economic Outlook update (13 January 2026) questions whether it will be a year of muddling through. We suspect the answer is yes.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
DMH Stallard LLP
DMH Stallard LLP
Article

Mental Health Moratorium Fails To Block Receiver Sale

The High Court has clarified the interaction between mental health crisis moratoriums under the Debt Respite Scheme and secured lending enforcement. When property security covers a company's debt rather than an individual's personal liability, receivers can proceed with sales despite the moratorium. This decision provides crucial guidance for insolvency practitioners and lenders navigating the complex intersection of mental health protections and security enforcement.
United KingdomInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP