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
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: What does the latest Comet Group case tell us about applications made by insolvency office-holders for information from third parties pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986, s 236 (IA 1986)?
Re Comet Group Ltd (in liquidation); Khan and others v Whirlpool (UK) Ltd and another  EWHC 3477 (Ch),  All ER (D) 336 (Oct)
Mr John Baldwin QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division, was faced with the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction to make an order for production of information and documents sought by the liquidators of Comet Group Ltd (Comet) against Whirlpool (UK) Ltd (Whirlpool) and Embraco Europe srl (Embraco) pursuant to an application made under IA 1986, s 236. If it did, the second issue for the judge was whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the liquidators.
The judge held that the court did have jurisdiction (once the liquidators confirmed they were content with a slight variation to the order originally sought). Further, taking all relevant matters into account, and being careful not to impose an unreasonable burden on the respondents, the judge ordered that the respondents provide to the liquidators the documentation sought.
For office-holders, this case provides some guidance as to what the court can and cannot order under IA 1986, s 236, and calls for some precision when drafting the application as to what relief is sought, to ensure that it falls within the court’s jurisdiction.
This case also confirms that office-holders need to be as specific as possible as to the classes of documents sought, and that a fishing expedition will generally not be tolerated.
IA 1986, s 236 forms part of the armoury available to administrators, administrative receivers,
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