0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

further clarification on administration expenses

24 February 2010

It has always been the practice of the Companies Court to order that the costs of bringing a winding up petition against a company which subsequently enters into administration should be paid as an administration expense. However until this month there has been no authority on the point.

Earlier this month, in Irish Reel Productions Limited v Capitol Films Limited, Mr Justice Briggs made an administration order in relation to Capitol Films Limited. At this hearing, he was asked by counsel for Irish Reel Productions Limited to order that the costs of a winding up petition, which had been presented in August 2008, be paid as an expense of the administration. Counsel also requested that the order of priority be altered pursuant to rule 2.67(3) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and that these be paid in priority to the administrators expenses. Counsel for Capitol Films Limited submitted that Mr Justice Briggs had no jurisdiction to make either of those orders and judgement was reserved.

Mr Justice Briggs held that the Court does have jurisdiction to make such orders and at his discretion he ordered that, in this case, the costs of the winding up petition be payable as an expense of the administration. However, he was not persuaded that there was any good or sufficient reason to vary the priority in which those costs would be paid.

Mr Justice Briggs made his judgement based on the reading of rule 2.12(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 which provides a list of who may appear or be represented at a hearing of an administration application. This list includes any person who has presented a petition for the winding up of the company. He held that one of the purposes of this is to enable that person to seek an order for the costs of that petition, which would ordinarily be dismissed at the hearing of the administration application if the administration order is made.

He referred to rule 2.12(3) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 which states that, "the costs of any person whose costs are allowed by the court are payable as an expense of the administration" and held that it is at the courts discretion to include both the persons costs of appearing at the hearing of the administration application and also the persons costs of any petition which is dismissed at the same time.

This case is authority that when an order is made at the hearing of an administration application for the costs of a winding up petition to be paid by the company in administration, these costs will automatically become an expense.

training and events

25Sep

In-house lawyers' update Nottingham office

Our next in-house lawyers' sessions will give in-house lawyers the tools and strategies for dealing with some of the problems caused by recent changes to the law.

View event

1Oct

Claims Club London office

We will be discussing: whether housing disrepair is the new PPI; school claims; and a legal update on 'hot topics'.

View event

focus on...

Guides

An introduction to EMI share options

Share options granted under the Enterprise Management Incentive Scheme (usually referred to as EMI options) are a popular choice for SME and start-up companies who want to reward and incentivise employees in alternative ways to simply paying them more amounts of cash.

View

Guides

An introduction to EIS and SEIS tax efficient investing

Where a start-up or SME company is looking for external investment, and one or more individuals are looking for investment opportunities which can provide significant tax advantages, it is well worth considering the Enterprise Investment Scheme (“EIS”) or the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (“SEIS”).

View

How to have a settlement discussion with an employee - hear from Kerren Daly

The Acas Code on settlement agreements provides limited guidance on how to conduct settlement agreement negotiations with an employee

View

Legal updates

The Information Commissioners Office flexes its muscles: first fines under the GDPR

After much speculation about what the first fines issued by the Information Commissioners Office might be we have seen two significant statements of intention to fine in the same month

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up