Key Points

• Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
• The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors

The Facts

This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

In Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (In administration) and another v Woolrych and others [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch), the Court considered the meaning of a deed of priority entered into between the senior and junior secured creditors of Arlington Infrastructure Limited (AIL). The junior creditors (but not the senior creditor) also held debentures over AIL's subsidiary companies.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236

On 25 March 2010, HM Treasury published a consultation paper which proposes improvements to the protection and payment of benefits for policyholders of insurers in financial difficulty. In particular, the proposals address certain gaps in the regime for insurers in administration in contrast to the regime applied in liquidation.

In the case of In the matter of Construction Confederation and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2009] EWHC 3551 (Ch), the trustees of the Construction Confederation Staff Pension Scheme have obtained an order for winding up of the sponsoring employer, an unincorporated association.

Freakley v Centre Reinsurance International Company & Ors [2006] UKHL 45

This case concerns whether a claim to reimbursement of claims-handling expenses should have priority over other creditors on insolvency of the insured.

Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.

Background