Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Will the courts reject a challenge to the administrators’ fees and disbursements where an administration could achieve one of the purposes of administration? Stefan Ramel of Guildhall Chambers comments on a ruling that he says will be a comfort to administrators.
Re BW Estates Ltd; Randhawa and another v Turpin and another  EWHC 517 (Ch),  All ER (D) 27 (Mar)
The applicant creditors of a company in administration applied for orders that:
The Companies Court rejected the contention that the administrators, appointed under Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), could not or should not have made the statement as to the statutory purpose, as required under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 29(3)(b), which had led to their appointment. Further, the argument that they should not be entitled to any remuneration at all for their services was rejected. Once the decision to appoint administrators had been made, the responsibility on the prospective administrator in considering whether the statement as to the statutory purpose could be made was to look ahead at what would or might happen during the administration if he was appointed, and not behind at the motives which might have led the directors to choose to make the appointment.
The wider background to this case arises from a dispute between the Randhawas and Mr Robert Williams which resulted in a substantial judgment in favour of the Randhawas. One of Mr Williams’ assets, over which the Randhawas obtained a charging order, was a shareholding in the company. The company in question was a property investment company which owned several properties. The properties were secured in
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Stephen qualified as a solicitor in 2005 and joined the Restructuring and Insolvency team at Lexis®PSL in September 2014 from Shoosmiths LLP, where he was a senior associate in the restructuring and insolvency team.
Primarily focused on contentious and advisory corporate and personal insolvency work, Stephen’s experience includes acting for office-holders on a wide range of issues, including appointments, investigations and the recovery and realisation of assets (including antecedent transaction claims), and for creditors in respect of the impact on them of the insolvency of debtors and counterparties.
0330 161 1234