The Insolvency Service has updated its enforcement outcomes management information for January 2025. The data shows that there were 88 director disqualifications and 13 bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions.

The Insolvency Service has published its monthly insolvency statistics for October 2025 on company and individual insolvencies in England and Wales. The data illustrates that there were 2,029 company insolvencies, 2% higher than in September 2025 and 17% higher than the previous year (October 2024). For individuals, the total number of insolvencies in October 2025 was 10,552, 4% lower than in September 2025 and 14% higher than in October 2024.

The Insolvency Service has published its monthly insolvency statistics for February 2026 on company and individual insolvencies in England and Wales. The data shows that there were 1,878 company insolvencies, 7% higher than in January 2026, but 7% lower than the same month in the previous year (2,015 in February 2025). For individuals, the total number of insolvencies in February 2026 was 11,609, 18% higher than in February 2025 and 6% higher than in January 2026.

The Insolvency Service has published its monthly insolvency statistics for March 2026 on company and individual insolvencies in England and Wales. The data shows that there were 2,022 company insolvencies, 7% higher than in February 2026 (1,895), and at a similar level to the same month in the previous year (1,995 in March 2025). For individuals, the total number of insolvencies in March 2026 was 12,252, 30% higher than in March 2025 and 3% higher than in February 2026.

The Insolvency Service has published its monthly insolvency statistics for November 2025 on company and individual insolvencies in England and Wales. The data illustrates that there were 1,866 company insolvencies, 8% lower than in October 2025 and 7% lower than the same month in the previous year (2,001 in November 2024). For individuals, the total number of insolvencies in November 2025 was 9,343, lower than in October 2025 and November 2024.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Supreme Court held that liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not limited to directors or other persons exercising management or control over the company in question. Rather, liability can attach (as the natural meaning of section 213 admits) to any person who is knowingly party to the carrying on of the company's business in a fraudulent manner. The Supreme Court further restated that an isolated act of fraud in an otherwise legitimate business would not amount to fraudulent trading. The Supreme Court was also asked to determine whether claims in dishonest assistance, parasitic on the directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties, were statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). The claims were issued more than six years from the dates of those breaches. The claimants sought to postpone the accrual of the limitation period under the LA 1980, s 32, ie until the time the claimants either discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. On the assumed facts, and notwithstanding the intermediate dissolution and restoration of the companies, the claimants could not rely on LA 1980, s 32 and were consequently statute barred. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner, Suleika Horrocks, trainee solicitor, and Isabelle Burnett, solicitor apprentice at Wedlake Bell LLP.

Administration is a procedure designed to give an entity breathing space, with a view to either a rescue or a restructure or to allow for a better outcome for all creditors than a liquidation. The modern administration regime is to be found in Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) which was introduced on 15 September 2003 by the Enterprise Act 2002. This Practice Note is aimed at real estate practitioners. It introduces the basic elements of administration and considers key provisions required in contracts for the sale of land if the seller is in administration. Appointment Administrators may be appointed: • by the court on the application of the company, its directors and/or any of one or more of its creditors • by the holders of a qualifying floating charge (QFC) without applying to court, although a notice of appointment must be filed • by the company or its directors without applying to court (notice of appointment to be filed) Objectives The objectives of administration are, in strict order: • to

This Practice Note is aimed at real estate practitioners. It introduces the basic elements of liquidation and considers key provisions required in contracts for the sale of land if the seller is in liquidation. 'Liquidation' or 'winding up' is the process by which a company is brought to an end. When a company is liquidated its business is terminated, although it may need to be carried on temporarily as part of the winding-up process (eg to enforce any valuable contracts), its assets are realised and the proceeds are distributed to those entitled. Forms of liquidation Liquidation may be either insolvent (where a company is unable to pay its debts or liabilities are greater than its assets) or solvent, and may be commenced: • by court order ('compulsory liquidation')—see: Compulsory liquidation—overview, or • out of court (‘voluntary liquidation’) A voluntary liquidation of: • an insolvent company is a creditors' voluntary liquidation (CVL)—see: Creditors' voluntary liquidation (CVL)—overview • a solvent company is a members' voluntary liquidation (MVL) and is dependent on a declaration of solvency by

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A creditor can present a bankruptcy petition if, among other things, the debtor has had a place of residence in the jurisdiction in the three years prior to presentation (section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). The debtor, who resided in Saudi Arabia, applied to set aside service of the petition on the ground that IA 1986, s 265(2)(b)(i) was not satisfied. The debtor’s mother had acquired a property and later funded the purchase of further properties in London for the use of the debtor’s family. The debtor, who asserted he had no legal or beneficial interest in the properties and required permission to stay there, did not stay at any of them in the relevant period. Applying the decisions of Mrs Justice Bacon in Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2021] Bus LR 1285 and Mr Justice Roth in an earlier petition involving the same parties (Al Saud v Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP [2022] EWHC 744 (Ch)), Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Barber concluded that nonetheless the creditor had a good arguable case that IA 1986, s 265(2)(b)(i) was satisfied. Written by Stephen Moverley Smith KC, XXIV Old Buildings.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court directed the supervisor of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) to issue a certificate of termination following findings of irremediable breach. Emphasising that a CVA is a contract between the company and its creditors, the court dismissed the company’s misconceived cross-application for a stay of the CVA pending the outcome of the creditor’s earlier challenge to the CVA. The court was further critical of the supervisor for not issuing a certificate of termination and issuing a winding-up petition in the circumstances, which he was obliged to do under the CVA. Written by Morwenna Macro, barrister at Five Paper.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this judgment, the High Court considered together two related applications under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), r 14.8 to reverse or vary decisions made by liquidators as to the admission and rejection (respectively) of two claims, and whether the liquidators should be held personally liable for the creditors' costs of those applications. Although the court ultimately reversed both of the liquidators’ decisions, it declined to order that the liquidators pay the applicants' costs. The liquidators' decision-making process was neither irrational nor unreasonable, they had acted fairly, in good faith, and without conscious bias, and they ‘did their best to give the correct answer’. Their conduct was, therefore, not ‘in substance so unreasonable or irrational, or so plainly contrary to the evidence as to attract an adverse costs consequence’. Thus, the 'starting point' under IR 2016, r 14.9(2) (that an office-holder is not personally liable for costs incurred by any person in respect of an application under IR 2016, r 14.8 ‘unless the court orders otherwise’) was not displaced. While the court applied existing authorities in reaching its decision, the judgment is a useful reminder to office-holders of: (1) how they should go about deciding whether to admit a claim to proof and in what amount—namely, to apply evidential scrutiny and reach a rational, principled decision short of conducting an exercise akin to a determination of proceedings to litigation standards, and (2) the statutory protection office-holders enjoy against personal liability for costs under IR 2016, r 14.9(2) when their decisions are challenged—liability remains exceptional and should only arise where office-holders act in bad faith, with conscious bias, and/or irrationally. Legal advisers advising office-holders should note the emphasis on reasoned decision-making and documentation, while creditors may take confidence in the court’s willingness to reverse or vary office-holders' adjudications where justified. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner and Suleika Horrocks, trainee solicitor, both of Wedlake Bell LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court upheld claims of fraudulent trading and breach of duty brought by the joint liquidators of Tiuta International Ltd (‘TIL’) against two directors of a group of bridge finance lending companies, including TIL. The court found that contrary to section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the directors had knowingly carried on the business of TIL with the intent to defraud its creditors, and similarly that their fraudulent conduct constituted a breach of their duties as directors under section 172(1) and (3) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). In reaching his decision, the judge looked in detail at the legal framework for a claim of fraudulent trading, considering a range of caselaw including the subjective and objective tests for intent to defraud, and noting of IA 1986, s 213 that the words ‘for any fraudulent purpose’ should not be construed in any limiting way. Relief under CA 2006, s 1157 was refused. The decision will be of practical assistance for practitioners bringing and defending fraudulent trading claims. Written by Elizabeth Grace, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.