This Practice Note gives guidance as to who can appoint an administrator to a company using the court procedure, and when it is possible and appropriate to do so. For details on the procedure for court administration appointments and what documents are required, see Practice Note: Court appointment of administrators—the procedure. Who is entitled to make an application to the court for an administration order The following may apply for an administration order: • the company • the directors of the company • one or more creditors of the company • an officer designated under section 87A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 • a combination of all of the above Certain other persons are also permitted to apply: • the holder of a qualifying floating charge (QFCH) as defined in paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (see further below on this) • where the company is in liquidation, its liquidator • where the company is undergoing a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) procedure, the supervisor • the

This Practice Note will cover: • the procedure for court administration appointments, and • the documents required to make an application For details on who is entitled to apply for a court appointment and in what circumstances, see Practice Note: Court appointments—who can apply and in what circumstances? For the process post-appointment, see Practice Note: Administration—the process post appointment. The procedure The procedure for an administration application is predominently set out in the paragraphs 10–13 and 35–39 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, rr 3.3–3.15. In order to apply to the court for an administration order, three documents must be filed at court: • an administration application • a witness statement in support of the application, and • a statement by the proposed administrator(s) If the person applying for an administration order is not a qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH), a QFCH can intervene by making an application under IA 1986, Sch B1 para 36

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published an update on the Link Fund Solutions (LFS) scheme of arrangement, noting that the court has decided to approve the scheme. The FCA understands that LFS expects to start making payments to scheme creditors as soon as possible, if there is no appeal of the judge’s decision.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court has approved administrators' applications under paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (Paragraph 71 applications) to sell fixed charge assets belonging to four English companies (the Companies) in the absence of consent from the fixed charge holder (Fonds). In a case in which the asset position was complicated due to time pressure, the fragmented (and cross-border) ownership of the group's assets and the sanctions regime in relation to Russia, the court gave guidance on the test under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 71. This included the ‘proper price’ for the assets and whether the sale of them would be likely to promote the purpose of the administrations. The court weighed up the prejudice suffered by the charge holder if the orders were made against the prejudice suffered by those interested in the promotion of the administrations if the orders were not made. Written by Laura Newbery, legal director at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Pensions analysis: On 19 December 2025, following a two-day hearing, Richards J approved a settlement concerning various validity and section 37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (PSA 1993) issues agreed between the parties and granted rectification of several deeds of amendment in respect of the Places for People Group Retirement Benefit Scheme, a defined benefit, contracted-out occupational pension scheme. The case is a salient reminder of the need for intricate orders settling complex cases and the additional requirements flowing from the fact that the court will only approve a settlement, where one or other of the parties is acting in a representative capacity, if it is satisfied that the settlement is for the benefit of all the represented persons. Written by Andrew Spink KC, David E Grant KC, Saul Margo and Joshua Cainer.

Private Client analysis: Trustees of two Will trusts sought the court’s approval of their decision to appoint out assets to the beneficiaries. The trustees’ decision was momentous and so the claim fell within category 2 of the case types set out in Public Trustee v Cooper. The trust assets largely comprised valuable agricultural property that generated a modest income. Master Clark approved the decision, having heard evidence from the trustees’ witnesses about the relevance of factors that the trustees took into account and the possibility that a conflict of interests arose. He commented in his judgment that it is inherent in a discretionary trust that some beneficiaries may be treated more favourably than others. Written by Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP.

Law360, Expert analysis: On 13 May 2025, the UK Upper Tribunal (UT) delivered its third and final decision in relation to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) enforcement decisions against Toni Fox-Bryant and David Price, directors of CFP Management Ltd. Rachael Healey, partner, and Daniel Parkin, associate, at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP discuss the significance of this case by highlighting the FCA’s enforcement priorities in the defined benefit (DB) pension transfer space, the personal accountability of senior individuals for systemic compliance failings, and the tribunal’s endorsement of the FCA’s approach to enforcement where advisory models are found to be fundamentally flawed.

Law360, London: It is no secret that the criminal justice system is in crisis. In January 2025, Dame Antonia Romeo, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice, confirmed that the record backlog of cases in the Crown Courts in England and Wales of more than 73,000 will continue to grow significantly.

This Checklist summarises some of the key matters a defence lawyer should take into account when making a bail application on behalf of a client in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court in England and Wales. It should be read in conjunction with the following Practice Notes: How to make court bail applications, The right to bail and grounds for refusing bail and Securities, sureties and other conditions of court bail. General Ensure you have the client's: • full name • address • date of birth • relevant medical history and any available evidence, eg GP records • relevant mental health history (psychiatric/psychological counselling) and any available evidence, eg GP records or reports • if applicable, details of any support or drugs worker • passport at court (if necessary) Strength of the prosecution’s case Assess the strength of the case against your client, including: • is the client likely to accept or deny guilt? • is the prosecution case strong or weak? • would a conviction be likely to result in a lengthy jail sentence? • what are the client’s antecedents?

This flowchart sets out the provisions that apply to court bundles in addition to Family Procedure Rules 2010, PD 27A, which is in force from 2 March 2026. Important distinctions are made in FPR 2010, PD 27A depending on whether the proceedings are for a financial remedy, or for all proceedings other than financial remedy proceedings. The Financial remedies guide (March 2026) (the FRG) is considered, together with FPR 2010, PD 12A (the Public Law Outline) and FPR 2010, PD 12B (the Child Arrangements programme). To access detailed practical guidance on the steps in the flowchart including relevant Overviews, Practice Notes, Precedents, procedural guides, client guides, legislation, forms and further reading links, see Practice Note: Preparation of court bundles in family proceedings or click on the related documents on the right hand side of the flowchart. Amendments were made to FPR 2010, PD 27A with effect from 2 March 2026. There are no transitional provisions, ie it applies to all family proceedings from that date regardless

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that, where a bankruptcy order has been made but the petition did not satisfy the requirement in section 267(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that the petition debt must be for a ‘liquidated’ sum, the court nonetheless retains a discretion not to annul the bankruptcy order. Thus, bankrupts who are intending to apply for annulment on the ground that the petition debt was not for a ‘liquidated’ sum should be aware that, even if the court agrees that IA 1986, s 267(2)(b) was not satisfied, the court still has a discretion whether to annul the bankruptcy order. In exercising its discretion, the court would consider matters such as whether the bankrupt had failed to respond to the petition; whether they had delayed in applying for annulment; whether there exist other indisputable creditors; and whether they have refused to co-operate with the trustee in bankruptcy. Written by Wilson Leung, barrister at Serle Court, who acted as counsel in this case.

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) in which it sought additional damages under section 97(2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) against a copyright infringer who had also been given a suspended custodial sentence for contempt as a result of breaching an injunction to restrain copyright infringement. While the court dismissed the appeal based on the facts and in exercise of its discretion, it held that there was no reason in principle why a court could not both fine a contemnor and issue a custodial sentence. As part of its deliberations, the court clarified the nature of damages under CDPA 1988, s 97(2) as sui generis and held that there had been no error in drawing an analogy between such damages and a fine.