In line with Government guidelines for safe working during the COVID pandemic, access to our office is strictly by a pre-arranged appointment only, and only where absolutely necessary. We are open for business with some staff working in the office and others from home, they can still be contacted in the usual way either by telephone or email.
In respect of your pre-arranged appointment, if you develop symptoms of COVID, or have in the last 14 days come into contact with someone with COVID or symptoms of, we ask that you contact the office by telephone/email to arrange a new appointment or discuss if there is an appropriate alternative to your meeting.
The safety of our staff and clients is of paramount importance to us and so thank you for your continued co-operation during these unprecedented times.
In the recent case of Lavin and others v Swindell  EWHC 2398(Ch) (23 August 2012) the High Court has confirmed that pursuant to paragraph 55 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) the Administrator has a duty to apply to the court for directions where the initial creditors’ meeting fails to approve the Administrator’s proposals or revised proposals.
The Court has wide powers to act in an application under paragraph 55 of Schedule B1 to the Act and can make any order that the Court thinks appropriate such as:
In the Lavin case an Administration Order was made on 16 December 2011 in respect of BTR (UK) LTD (“BTR”). It transpired that BTR was insolvent with the Statement of Affairs revealing assets of only £56,726 and an estimated deficiency of £464,194. The Administrator sent out his proposals to creditors. In them he envisaged that there would be insufficient funds to pay unsecured creditors and he proposed to dispense with the initial meeting of creditors.
However some of the creditors requisitioned a meeting. The majority voted to reject the Administrator’s proposals and also voted for a resolution requiring the Administrator to petition for the compulsory winding up of BTR. The Administrator rejected the proposal to wind the company up and argued that there were insufficient funds to cover the petition costs.
The applicant and other creditors then issued proceedings to compel the Administrator to apply for the compulsory winding up of BTR.
Behrens J considered that whilst Paragraph 55 of Schedule B1 to the Act does not expressly require the Administrator to bring the matter before the Court, Paragraph 55(2) implied that there must be a hearing and there could only be a hearing if an application was made. That application would ordinarily be made by the Administrator. If, as in this case, the Administrator does not make the application, there is no reason why it should not be made by a creditor. He went on to say that if the creditors reject the Administrator’s proposals it is difficult to see how the Administrator can manage the company’s affairs without making an application to the Court.
The Court terminated the Administrator’s appointment with immediate effect and ordered a compulsory winding up order to be made.