When a company enters administration, one of the administrator’s core statutory duties is to prepare proposals explaining how they intend to achieve the purpose of administration. These proposals must be approved by creditors. While approval is usually a formality, rejection can fundamentally derail the administration, leaving the practitioner without authority to act and, in some cases, forcing an early exit into liquidation.
This article explores the statutory framework, the common reasons proposals are rejected, and the key case law that guides the steps that follow.
The Government’s Insolvency Service has issued its insolvency figures for January 2026 which show that construction is the UK’s worst performing sector for insolvencies in 2025. This is the fourth year in a row that construction has held that position. Construction accounted for 17% of insolvencies in 2025 ahead of retail on 16% and hospitality on 14%. The total number of insolvencies in the UK construction sector was 3,728 but was lower than the 2024 figure for the sector of 4,032 insolvencies.
Market Financial Solutions ("MFS"), the mortgage provider, collapsed suddenly last month. This collapse has intensified scrutiny of asset-based lending practices, where loans are secured against tangible assets, and has renewed focus on the risks of double pledging.
Welcome to the latest edition of Corporate Update.
The High Court’s recent decision in Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) regarding WhatsApp communications may cause you to reconsider whether to add a moniker to your messages. While this decision related to s53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA”) the principles set out in the judgment have wider-ranging significance, as they apply to any requirement for a document to be signed.
Background
The High Court’s recent decision in Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) regarding WhatsApp communications may cause you to reconsider whether to add a moniker to your messages. While this decision related to s53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA”) the principles set out in the judgment have wider-ranging significance, as they apply to any requirement for a document to be signed.
Background
In Webb and another (as liquidators of Eversholt Rail (365) Limited (in liquidation)) v Eversholt Rail Limited and another [2026] EWHC 101 (Ch), the High Court dismissed the liquidators’ appeal against a decision not to allow their extensive application for the production of documents under s.235 and s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). The application had sought to reconstitute a special purpose company’s full corporate knowledge in circumstances where it had held no documents of its own.
In Short
Aerovias del Continente Americano SA Avianca & Ors v Versilia Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 282 (Ch) covers well trodden ground on the limits to the powers of a provisional liquidator and how, in certain circumstances, they can be overcome, in this case by seeking ratification of the sale of the company’s assets.
The English High Court has again been called upon to consider the validity and legal impact of dealings conducted via WhatsApp.
Background