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
Printer Friendly Version
The court's decision in the recently decided case of Re Business Environment Fleet Street Ltd (In Administration)  EWHC 3540 (Ch),  All ER (D) 334 (Oct) highlights how important it is for administrators to properly analyse the circumstances they face to ensure the relief they seek is both appropriate in the circumstances, and that it is a relief that the court has jurisdiction to give.
Stephen Atherton QC of 20 Essex Street, who acted for the first and second Respondents, considers the issues that arose.
The adminstrators applied under the Insolvency Act 1986, Sch B1, para 72 (IA 1986) to dispose of certain assets. The Companies Court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application where it was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that a chattel leasing agreement had given possession of the assets to the company.
The key features of the case were:
The administrators' principal application was for an order under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 72 as against the company which contended that it had title to the goods. Such an order, if made, permits an administrator of a company to sell assets which are in the possession of the company in administration under a hire-purchase agreement as if all the rights of the owner under the agreement were vested in the company.
The administrators also sought an order for the sale of the relevant assets under IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 67 and 68. Paragraph 67 provides that the administrator of a company (on his appointment) is permitted to take custody or control of all the property to which he or she thinks that the company in administration is entitled. Paragraph 68 allows the court (in certain circumstances) to provide an administrator with directions as to how he or she is to conduct the administration of the company.
As regards the first limb of the administrators' application the issues were as follows:
The essential question therefore was: Was the agreement a chattel leasing agreement, ie did a bailment exist in relation to the relevant assets and pursuant to that bailment was the company in administration in possession of the relevant assets?
It should also be noted that there was a long-running dispute as to which of the companies had title to the relevant assets.
The court began by accepting that the issue as to title in the assets was not before it, but that for the purposes of the present application it had to assume that the assets were owned by the company against which the application had been commenced.
The court further accepted that the burden was on the administrators to establish that the relevant agreement was a 'chattel leasing agreement' and that therefore there existed a bailment of the relevant assets pursuant to which the company in administration had possession of those assets.
The court concluded that the following questions arose on the administrators' application:
The court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to make the order sought by the administrators under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 72. First, the court considered the proper interpretation of the relevant agreement (applying the now well established tenets of construction for commercial contracts). The court determined that the effect of the agreement was, on the balance of probabilities, not to give possession of the relevant assets to the company in administration. On the assumption that the relevant assets belonged to respondent company, either it had retained possession or it had transferred possession to the subtenants.
As regards, IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 67 and 68, the court concluded that it could not order the sale of the assets on the basis that the administrators (subjectively) thought that the assets belonged to the company in administration. If the effect of the relevant paragraphs was to enable the court to order a sale of assets in such circumstances this would confer on the court and the administrator an exorbitant jurisdiction to convert property belonging to third parties, simply because it happened to be desirable on the balance of convenience. Whether IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 67 and 68 were read on their own or in conjunction with IA 1986, s 234 (the effect of which is to relieve an administrator from a liability which he would otherwise have for conversion of a third party's assets where he has acted reasonably) they do not give the administrator licence to convert third party chattels, nor do they serve to extend the court's limited powers (eg under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 72) to override the rights of third parties.
The court went on to consider whether, assuming it did have jurisdiction under one or other of the limbs of the administrators' application, in its discretion it should exercise that jurisdiction in favour of the administrators. By reference to a number of authorities relevant to the exercise of the court's powers under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 71--which permits the court to enable an administrator to sell property which is subject to non-floating charge security--the court accepted that in exercising its discretion it had to embark upon a 'balancing exercise'. By reference to that balancing exercise, and on the facts of the case, the court concluded that even if it had had jurisdiction it was not satisfied that the balance of convenience lay in ordering an immediate sale of the relevant assets.
The case illustrates that it is important for administrators to subject the circumstances they face to proper analysis in order to ensure that the relief they are seeking is appropriate and is relief which the court has jurisdiction to give. And, assuming there is jurisdiction, that the circumstances are such that the court will grant the relief which they seek.
In the course of its reasoning the court applied the reasoning in a case (Re David Meek Plant Ltd; Re David Meek Access Ltd  1 BCLC 680) concerning the forerunner of IA 1986, Sch B1, para 71 (ie IA 1986, s 15--now repealed) to the effect that the application of IA 1986, Sch B1, para 71 is not precluded by the relevant agreement having been terminated either before or during the administration.
In addition, the analysis of the Court of Appeal in Re Atlantic Computers Systems Limited  Ch 505,  1 All ER 476 (another case concerning IA 1986, s 15) as regards the identity of the party in possession, although referred to in the course of the hearing was not specifically addressed. However, by finding that the respondent company, as an alternative to the respondent company having possession of the relevant assets, may have parted with possession of the relevant assets to the subtenants of the company in administration, the court effectively distinguished Re Atlantic Computers Systems Limited by reference to the facts of the case before it.
Stephen Atherton QC's practice comprises international and domestic corporate insolvency and restructuring, personal insolvency, company law, banking, general off-shore and international commercial litigation, civil aspects of international and domestic commercial fraud and international and domestic asset tracing. In Re Business Environment Fleet Street Ltd (In Administration), Stephen was counsel for the first and second respondents.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the link below for further information on charged property in administration:
The Administrator and Charged Property (Subscriber access only)
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor
0330 161 1234