Appeals and reviews in insolvency proceedings

The appeal process in insolvency proceedings is very similar to general litigation, with a few exceptions.

The Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) also provides a review process whereby the insolvency court has jurisdiction to revisit its own orders outside the scope of, and therefore entirely separate to, an appeal.

Appeals generally

Appeals in litigation are governed by CPR 52 and its practice directions, which comprise CPR PD 52A, CPR PD 52B, CPR PD 52C, CPR PD 52D and CPR PD 52E.

An appeal is only allowed if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was:

  1. wrong, or

  2. unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court

For further reading, see Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations.

Appeals are generally limited to a review of the lower court's decision. Oral or new evidence is not admissible unless permission has been granted. Given the tight time limits in initiating and responding to an appeal, there are some important preliminary considerations and next steps for practitioners

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Rational FX—court sanctions distribution plan amid regulatory uncertainty (Kicks and another v MLS-Multinational Logistics Services Ltd (a company incorporated in Malta))

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: On the 28 July 2025, the court approved a distribution plan in the special administration of Rational Foreign Exchange Ltd (RFX), enabling the joint special administrators (Kristina Kicks and Edward Boyle of Interpath) (Special Administrators) to return safeguarded funds to customers. The Special Administrators also sought declaratory relief regarding the status of European domiciled customers, following the repeal of passporting rights under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSR 2017) post-Brexit. RFX employed various methods to continue servicing European clients, some lacking proper regulatory basis. This required the Special Administrators to determine whether such clients were customers of RFX or separate European entities. This was a key issue given the shortfall in safeguarded funds available for distribution. The court granted the relief sought by the Special Administrators and set out guidance to assist in clarifying customer status. This case marks only the second reported judgment approving a distribution plan in respect of a payment services firm under rule 114 of the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (2021 Regulations), and the first involving European domiciled business and a significant shortfall in safeguarded funds. In absence of specific guidance under the 2021 Regulations and the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2021 (2021 Rules), the court applied among other things the three-stage test from Re SVS Securities Plc assessing; (i) fairness and reasonableness of the proposed distribution; (ii) progress of the special administration; and (iii) adequacy of stakeholder engagement. Written by Brian Rostron, associate and Kelvin Riley, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents