This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content in relation to the challenge of an administrator’s conduct of the company under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) on the basis that the administrator is acting, has acted or proposes to act so as to unfairly harm the interests of a member or creditor of the company. The cases are divided by topic area and include: • the applicants • management of administration • unfair harm • relief For further reading on this topic, see Practice Note: Challenges to administrators—action for unfair harm. The applicants Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Loveridge v Povey; Loveridge v Loveridge [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch), [2024] All ER (D) 110 (Feb) 16 February 2024 A member of the company will not have standing to bring the application if, in light of a debarring order made in financial remedy proceedings, they

Arbitration analysis: HHJ Parfitt dismissed an application under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) to challenge an arbitrator’s award following a rent review dispute. The procedure put in place by the arbitrator was a fair one and the claimant had had ample opportunity to argue its case before the arbitrator. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Hardwicke.

Local Government Analysis: In R (G) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Administrative Court dismissed a challenge to a local authority’s discharge of its duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996). The court held that the authority had acted lawfully in accepting and performing its prevention, relief and interim accommodation duties and was not required either to provide immediate interim accommodation while the claimant remained in occupation or to determine the main housing duty before the relief duty had ended. The decision reinforces the wide discretion afforded to housing authorities when managing homelessness duties, confirms that temporary accommodation need only be suitable in the circumstances and highlights the limits of judicial intervention in ongoing homelessness decision-making processes. Produced in partnership with Ian Peacock of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Planning analysis: In R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v SoST, campaigners unsuccessfully challenged a decision to grant a development consent order for a road and tunnel scheme in the vicinity of Stonehenge the claimant argued among other things that: it was unfair to redetermine the development consent application without reopening the public consultation; the Secretary of State gave inadequate reasons for rejecting the alternative of a bypass route thought to cause less harm to the world heritage site; the approach to climate change was flawed; and it was irrational to give no weight to the risk that Stonehenge would likely be delisted as a world heritage site by the World Heritage Committee if the development went ahead. Following a rolled-up hearing the court refused permission on six of the grounds, and dismissed the other two grounds. Written by Mark Westmoreland Smith, barrister at Francis Taylor Building.

This Practice Note considers challenges to the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (ACA 1996), as amended, and anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions. Note: Indian judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (as amended) The Indian law on arbitration is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (ACA 1996). The ACA 1996 was amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 (the 2015 Amendment) and subsequently by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2019 (the 2019 Amendment). This Practice Note discusses the legal position under the ACA 1996 after the 2015 Amendment and 2019 Amendment. Challenges to tribunal jurisdiction Under ACA 1996, s 16, India has adopted the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz and, therefore, under Indian law, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction. For more information on the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz under English law, see Practice Note:

Arbitration analysis: The New Roads and Street Works 1991 (NRSW 1991) provides a scheme for resolving disputes arising out of street work claims. The NRSW 1991, s 96(3) provides that ‘Where under any provision of this Part a person is entitled in certain circumstances to recover costs or expenses incurred by him in executing works or other steps, any dispute as to the existence of those circumstances or as to the amount recoverable shall be determined by arbitration. This applies whether the provision is expressed as conferring a right to recover, or as imposing a liability to reimburse or indemnify or to bear the cost, but does not apply in relation to a provision expressed as providing for the charging of a fee or conferring a right to compensation or in relation to section 78 (contributions to cost of making good long-term damage to the street).’ His Honour Judge Hodge decided that a claim for the costs and expenses of repairs to CityFibre’s network infrastructure falls within the carve out and must therefore be litigated in the county court rather than arbitrated. Written by Jennifer Haywood, arbitrator/mediator/barrister at Serle Court.

A challenge to the array is an objection to the whole panel of jurors summoned to try a case, rather than to individual jurors. It alleges that the jury panel has been improperly selected, summoned or constituted, for example due to systemic bias, procedural irregularity, or failure to comply with statutory jury selection requirements.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, challenges to the array are recognised in statute and case law in the context of criminal jury trials, and must usually be based on an allegation that the selection process was not random or was otherwise unlawful or unfair. In Ireland, similar principles apply under the Juries Acts, with challenges directed at the validity of the entire jury panel. In Scotland, the concept is broadly analogous but arises within a distinct statutory and procedural framework governing juries in solemn proceedings.Such challenges are made before the jury is sworn. If upheld, the court may discharge the panel and order a new jury panel to be summoned. They are relatively rare in practice and must be supported by clear evidence of a defect affecting the array as a whole.

Tax analysis: In Heathrow Airport Ltd and others v HM Treasury and HMRC, the Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to the government’s decision to withdraw two VAT reliefs providing for tax free shopping from IP completion day (11 pm on 31 December 2020).

Personal Injury analysis: What does the decision in KCR v Scout Association tell us about the court’s approach to compensation claims in respect of historic abuse? David McClenaghan, a partner and solicitor-advocate at Bolt Burdon Kemp specialising in child abuse compensation claims, believes this case highlights the growing difficulties facing claimants and the lengths defendants will go to to frustrate claims.

Corporate Crime analysis: While flying a Hawker Hunter aircraft at the Shoreham Air Show in 2015, Mr Hill crashed the plane onto the A27, killing 11 people. This tragedy resulted in Mr Hill being charged with 11 counts of gross negligence. The prosecution case highlights some of the major challenges in securing a conviction in gross negligence cases. To make such a finding, a jury must be satisfied it was more than just a tragic mistake or accident. Martin Rackstraw, joint head of criminal law team at Bindmans, comments on the difficulties this type of prosecution encounters.

An administrator has wide powers and discretion in the conduct of an administration and, as a result, the courts are generally reluctant to interfere with the conduct of the administration unless absolutely necessary. This Practice Note considers the occasions when an administrator's conduct may need to be challenged under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: Challenge to administrator’s conduct of the company under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986—key cases. Challenges to administrator’s conduct There are two main provisions which allow a challenge to an administrator's conduct. The first, IA 1986, Sch B1, para 88, gives the court the power to remove an administrator. The other, being the provision with which this Practice Note is concerned, is where a creditor or member of a company in administration may apply to the court under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 74 claiming that: • the administrator is acting or has acted so as unfairly to harm the interests

Note: the Swiss cases referred to below are not all reported by Lexis+® UK. Introduction Swiss domestic and Swiss international arbitration Swiss law distinguishes domestic and international ‘Swiss’ arbitration. The first is codified in Part 3 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure of 19 December 2008 (the ‘Swiss CCP’; the latest minor amendments to Part 3 entered into force on 1 January 2025), the second in Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act of 18 December 1987 (the ‘PILA’; reformed in 2021). Both codifications regulate by and large the same issues as the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, with amendments of 2006 (the ‘Model Law’), while not being structured according to the Model Law and thus remaining independent and unique versions of an arbitration law. Swiss arbitration law only applies to arbitrations seated in Switzerland. This requires rules on how to determine the seat. Accordingly, Article 176(3) PILA clarifies, seeking to cover every conceivable scenario: ‘The seat of the arbitration shall be determined by the parties or by