- Validity of appointment and costs of administration—application of Duomatic principle (Re BW Estates Ltd, Randhawa v Turpin)
- Original news
- What practical lessons can those advising take away from this case?
- What was the background to the case?
- What were the legal issues the judge had to decide?
- Why did these issues arise?
- What were the main legal arguments put forward?
- What did HHJ Purle QC decide and why?
- To what extent is this judgment helpful in clarifying the law in this area?
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: After the court had, in prior proceedings, rejected an application by creditors for orders disallowing or reducing the remuneration and expenses of the company’s former administrators, the applicant creditors sought a declaration that the former administrators had not been validly appointed as the director’s meeting was inquorate. Warren Bank, commercial and insolvency barrister at St Philips Stone Chambers, considers the claims in Re BW Estates Ltd, Randhawa v Turpin.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial