Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
- MR. S. ATHERTON QC (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) appeared on behalf of the Proposed Administrators
- MR. L. TAMLYN (instructed by Nabarro) appeared on behalf of the Companies.
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
UK Coal Operations Ltd, Re
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by the newly appointed administrators of Company A seeking permission to dispense with certain procedural requirements under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The administrators request to be excused from the obligations set out in paragraphs 49 and 51, which relate to the issuing of formal proposals and holding an initial creditors' meeting. The administration order had been made in respect of four companies within the same group, with a proposed restructuring intended to produce a better outcome for creditors than immediate liquidation. The plan involves Company A entering creditors' voluntary liquidation shortly after administration to enable liquidators (who are the same individuals as the administrators) to disclaim onerous liabilities. The process is designed to avoid difficulties related to notice periods and the need for court sanction that would arise if liquidation occurred without prior administration.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the administrators should be permitted to dispense with the requirement to send formal proposals to creditors and other parties as mandated by paragraph 49 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
- Whether the administrators should be permitted to dispense with holding the initial creditors' meeting as required by paragraph 51 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Re Advent Computer Training Limited (No. 2) [2011] BCC 52 |
Permitting administrators to dispense with sending proposals under para.49 to preserve commercial confidentiality and avoid pointless expense. |
The court applied the reasoning that commercial necessity may constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with para.49 and extended the same reasoning to para.51 regarding the creditors' meeting. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered that the administration in this case would last only a few days before Company A entered into creditors' voluntary liquidation. Given this brief period, it would be pointless and inefficient to require the administrators to prepare and send formal proposals or hold a creditors' meeting, as the company would no longer be in administration by the time these procedures could be completed. The court referred to the criminal liability imposed on administrators for failure to comply without reasonable excuse with the requirements of paras.49 and 51. Drawing on its earlier decision in Re Advent Computer Training Limited, the court held that commercial necessity can amount to a reasonable excuse. Here, the necessity was to avoid pointless expense and procedural steps that would have no practical effect. The proposals had been sufficiently explained to the court, which had made the administration orders in light of the restructuring proposals. Therefore, the court found a reasonable excuse existed to dispense with the requirements of both paragraphs.
Holding and Implications
The court granted permission to the administrators of Company A to dispense with the requirements of paragraphs 49 and 51 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The direct effect of this decision is that the administrators are not required to send formal proposals or hold an initial creditors' meeting in this particular administration, which will be of very short duration before liquidation. No broader legal precedent beyond the application of commercial necessity as a reasonable excuse was established.
Click here to read the full judgment