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
Did the directors of a company in administration have standing to challenge the validity of the appointment of administrators? As a result of the bank’s conduct in the lead up to the appointment of the administrators, was the bank estopped from making a demand for the monies owing and appointing the administrators?
Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Ltd and another v McLean  EWHC 3237 (Ch),  All ER (D) 308 (Oct)
The case concerned two construction companies that had been involved in the development of a hotel in Durham. The original financing by Barclays Bank plc had been lengthy and there was a refinancing in 2007/08, which led to complaints being made by the companies against Barclays. The companies issued proceedings against Barclays in the Companies Court on 2 November 2011.
In parallel with the pursuit of the claim, in early 2012, the companies made overtures to Barclays with a view to settling the debt owed to Barclays and the claim. On 26 June 2012, Barclays responded favourably, indicating that it was ‘willing to take part in discussions with the aim of reaching a solution to the current issues’. The parties agreed to a stay of the litigation while settlement discussions were ongoing. The companies proposed settling Barclays’ debt and the claim for a capital sum using funds raised from the Co-operative Bank and discussions continued between the parties into 2013, during which time the stay of the litigation was extended until 30 April 2013.
On 4 September 2013, the companies notified Barclays that the Co-operative Bank was unlikely to be able to do the deal with the companies as originally notified. Following this, the companies obtained two indicative offers of finance from potential funders but there was no communication between the companies and Barclays between 4 September 2013 and 11 October 2013.
On 11 October 2013, Barclays emailed the companies to notify them that it intended to make demand for repayment. Demand for repayment was served that day and, in the absence of any payment, Barclays appointed administrators later on 11 October 2013.
The companies applied to court challenging the validity of the appointment of the administrators on the basis that IA 1986, Sch B1,
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234