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
This analysis considers the recent decision in Re Statebourne (Cryogenic) Ltd, in which Zacaroli J was required to determine the validity of an out-of-court appointment of administrators by the directors of a company, and the time at which the appointment took effect, where the notice of appointment was CE-filed. Written by Simon Passfield, barrister, at Guildhall Chambers.
Re Statebourne (Cryogenic) Ltd  EWHC 231 (Ch),  All ER (D) 42 (Feb)
This is now the seventh reported case in the last 12 months concerning the validity of an out-of-court appointment of administrators where the notice of appointment (NOA) has been CE-filed. It is the first reported decision since the guidance note on this topic which was published in January 2020 by the Chancellor of the High Court.
In this case, as in the recent case of Carter Moore Solicitors Limited  EWHC 186 (Ch),  All ER (D) 61 (Feb) (decided three days earlier), it was unnecessary for the court to determine whether or not a company and its directors may CE-file an NOA when the court office is closed (a question on which there are conflicting authorities) because it took a pragmatic approach that enabled it to conclude that the NOA was validly filed before the court office closed. Accordingly, that thorny issue remains live (although it is anticipated that it will shortly be resolved by way of amendment to the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024).
This case does address the question of how to calculate the period of ten business days beginning with the date on which the notice of intention to appoint (NOIA) is filed referred to in paragraph 28(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (ie the period within which an appointment must be made). In Re Keyworker Homes (North West) Ltd  EWHC 3499
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