For reasons explained in this blog, they did not in the case of Conway and others v Plass and others [2025] EWHC 2625 (Ch) but there could be situations where it might.
In Conway and others v Plass and others, the High Court has provided guidance on when contract liabilities incurred by administrators will be treated as administration expenses under the Lundy Granite principle.
Factual Background
In August 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) launched a Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol, designed to provide a framework for arbitration of matters arising in the context of restructuring, adjustment of debt or insolvency.
Introduction
In a recent decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided useful clarification on how TUPE operates in insolvency scenarios when a provisional liquidator is appointed. The judgment confirms that the TUPE exception for terminal insolvency proceedings can apply earlier than some employers and buyers may expect, with the result that employee transfer protections may be disapplied before a winding-up order is made.
TUPE and insolvency
Before the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Purdue Pharma,1 it had become common practice for Chapter 11 debtors to include a consensual or nonconsensual non-debtor third-party release in their plans of reorganization.
An insolvency practitioner (IP) can pursue a wide range of claims when appointed as the administrator or liquidator of a company.
These include claims that already existed at the point that the company entered an insolvency process (Pre-existing Company Claims), and ones that arise on insolvency (IP Claims see below).
An IP pursues Pre-existing Company Claims as agent for and in the name of the company, and these types of claims typically include claims for debt, breach of contract, breach of duty or recovery of property.
1. Introducción
Can section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 serve as a fast-track route for administrators to secure vacant possession of property from trespassers? That was the question before the High Court in the recent case of Maher v Investalet Ltd [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch).
The facts
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP European Restructuring – 2025 in Review 5