Evidence and evidence gathering

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

The Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024 give insolvency office-holders in certain situations the power to obtain property (which includes cash, books, records and documents) of the insolvent company or bankrupt. IA 1986 imposes a duty on certain individuals and entities to co-operate with the office-holder, and imposes sanctions in the event that they fail to do so. In addition, certain individuals or entities are required to deliver up accounts or explanations (either orally, in person or by way of a sworn statement) detailing their dealings with the affairs and property of the insolvent individual or company.

The purpose of the powers is to allow the office-holder to reconstitute the knowledge of the insolvent company or individual, which may allow previously unknown assets to be realised for the benefit of creditors.

Corporate insolvency

Where a company enters into one of the applicable insolvency processes (being, under IA 1986, s 234(1), administration, administrative receivership, liquidation or provisional liquidation), certain persons and entities owe duties to the appointed office-holder to deliver up company property, provide information

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

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Koza Altin v Koza Ltd and Mr Hamdi Akin Ipek [2025]

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This is another decision concerning whether and when the court will make a winding up order on just and equitable grounds in the case of a deadlock, albeit on unusual facts and in the context of summary judgment and strike out. This case centres on a very long-running dispute between (i) Mr Hamdi Ipek (the Director), the sole director of Koza Ltd (the Company) and (disputed) holder of a single class ‘A’ ordinary share in it, and (ii) the holder of all of the other issued share capital in the Company, Koza Altin (the Parent). The Parent alleged (among other things) that the Director had spent Company funds at an alarming rate and failed to implement special resolutions it had passed as the effective sole shareholder. In this latest round, the Petitioner had petitioned for the Company’s winding up on just and equitable grounds to resolve that ‘intolerable position’, and then applied for summary judgment on its petition (alternatively, strike out of the Company’s defence to the petition). The court dismissed the Petitioner’s application, largely on the basis that an undertaking which was given by the Director to the court to address the Parent’s concerns. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner, and Rhian Bevan, trainee solicitor, at Wedlake Bell LLP.

Insolvency Service announces update on INSSight system rollout

The Insolvency Service has announced that the rollout of its new internal case management system, INSSight, will begin in late October 2025 and continue into early November 2025. The system will support Official Receiver Services and Estate Accounts, including banking functions, and will operate alongside the existing ISCIS Online system, which will remain available during the transition. During the rollout, users may experience processing delays for cheque or BACS payment requests, the allocation of receipts to the Insolvency Service Account (ISA) and bulk case transfers. Access to the Individual Insolvency Register (IIR) will remain available throughout, although there will be a temporary suspension of new Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) registrations and bankruptcy orders. Debt Relief Orders will be unaffected, and the Director Conduct Reporting System will remain available. However, access to information for creditor nominations for routine Insolvency Practitioner appointments and for case handovers following appointments will be limited during the transition. From 3 November 2025, Insolvency Practitioners will be required to use new templates for unclaimed receipts, cheque and BACS payment requisitions, IVA registrations and bulk transfers.

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—9 October 2025

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: recently published guidance on the voluntary COVID—19 repayment scheme, updated guidance on AML information sharing measures under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) 2023, plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

Occupation of premises is not trading and so res judicata did not apply (Nicholson v Masood)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court dismissed an application by liquidators to strike out a defence on the ground that the issues had already been determined at a previous hearing and so should not be re-tried. The court found that the key issue in this misfeasance claim was whether the company had traded from certain premises, whereas the previous decision (as to whether the company was liable for business rates) had been based on whether the company was in occupation of those premises. That was sufficient a distinction to demonstrate that the defence was not an attempt to retry a matter already determined by a court. Further, as the earlier judgement focused on a slightly different question, those proceedings could not have been anticipated to resolve this very substantial claim brought against the three respondents personally who were not the parties to the earlier action (that was the company) and only one of them was a privy of the company. Written by Mark Sands, partner at Opus Restructuring and Insolvency.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allows for the avoidance of transactions which were designed to defraud creditors. Its provisions are intended to prevent parties from disposing of assets so as to

Preferences under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Preferences under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986The purpose of a preference claim under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is to prevent a situation where a creditor is given priority in relation to past indebtedness of a company at the expense of other creditors, preventing a

Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986

Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986What is wrongful trading?A wrongful trading claim applies to a person if:•the company has gone into insolvent liquidation or insolvent administration•at some time before the commencement of the company's liquidation or
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Transactions defrauding creditors—claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allows for the avoidance of transactions which were designed to defraud creditors. Its provisions are intended to prevent parties from disposing of assets so as to

Preferences under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Preferences under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Preferences under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986The purpose of a preference claim under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is to prevent a situation where a creditor is given priority in relation to past indebtedness of a company at the expense of other creditors, preventing a

Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986

Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986

Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986What is wrongful trading?A wrongful trading claim applies to a person if:•the company has gone into insolvent liquidation or insolvent administration•at some time before the commencement of the company's liquidation or