Corporate insolvency

A company becomes insolvent if it does not have enough assets to cover its debts and/or it cannot pay its debts on the due dates. It is the directors’ responsibility to know whether or not the company is trading while insolvent and they can be held legally responsible for continuing to trade in that situation. The decision to appoint receivers, liquidators and administrators is the responsibility of the appropriate funding bodies (ie banks and lending institutions), creditors, the courts or the company itself, depending on the procedure.

General

Insolvency in the UK is:

•
governed by Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024
•
subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court and designated County Courts

Companies in financial difficulty may be subject to various insolvency procedures, including:

•
company voluntary arrangements (CVAs)
•
administration
•
administrative receivership
•
voluntary winding-up (by creditors or members)
•
compulsory winding-up (by the court)

Spurred on by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and a desire to mitigate the effect on businesses of the government-imposed lockdown, the government expedited new insolvency legislation, resulting in CIGA

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

OPG publishes guidance on complaints procedure and feedback processes

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has published guidance outlining its complaints procedure and feedback processes. The guidance sets out a ten working day timeframe for responses, with extensions permitted for complex investigations. It clarifies that the OPG handles complaints relating to its supervisory services but cannot consider matters involving decisions or processes of the Court of Protection or the High Court, as these fall outside its remit. Complaints regarding legal advice or services are also excluded and should instead be directed to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The procedure establishes a two-tier escalation process, requiring initial complaints to be addressed before referral to the OPG's chief executive, with final recourse available through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via MP referral.

OPG publishes guidance on accessing LPA service

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has published comprehensive guidance on accessing the ‘Use a Lasting Power of Attorney’ (Use an LPA) service. This free online service, available to users in England and Wales, enables donors and attorneys to view LPAs electronically rather than relying solely on registered paper versions.

OPG adds 2024–25 annual report to published reports collection

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has updated its annual reports collection to include the annual report and accounts for 2024–25. Designated HC 1078 and covering the period from 1 April 2024–31 March 2025, the report was laid before Parliament on 17 July 2025 in compliance with legislative requirements and details OPG's funding sources and expenditure.

A caution for pursuing claims of Proprietary Estoppel and Undue Influence (Maile v Maile)

Private Client analysis: The High Court dismissed all probate claims against the Estate of Mary Stevens as well as the claimants' proprietary estoppel claim for title to the majority of the Estate. The court held that there is a high bar to prove unconscionability in a proprietary estoppel case and claimants should not take on the burden of proof lightly. The decision of James v James was followed, in that there is a distinction between unequivocal assurances that cannot be reneged without causing unconscionability, to statements of a testator's present intention. The court also reaffirmed the principle in Horsford v Horsford–that if the claimant is in partnership with the promisor, this is likely to be detrimental to a claim for proprietary estoppel, because, in an arms' length partnership agreement, they have effectively contracted out of the equitable remedies. The Court also emphasised that undue influence is an extremely serious allegation to make, particularly against a solicitor with nothing to gain from the alleged coercion and should not be relied upon as a fallback argument. Written by Adam Corbin, Partner, Jake Rostron, senior associate, and Henrietta Knott, associate, at Michelmores LLP.