Overview

• The UK Supreme Court issued a recent decision in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38.
• Crucially, the Court determined that an administrator is not an officer of the company within the meaning of the phrase 'any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate', for the purpose of section 194(3).

Contents

R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38

Background

In R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v. Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another (Respondents), the Supreme Court held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an "officer" of the insolvent company under section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

The judgment of Chief ICC Judge Briggs in Re Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased); Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v The Estate of Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased) and Anor [2023] EWHC 2744 (Ch) is of interest because, as the judge himself remarked, there is little authority on the appointments of interim receivers in cases of individual insolvency; and for that matter there is little on the administration of the estates of deceased insolvents, that being the condition of the debtor in this case.

This week:

It’s not the first occasion that a major serviced office provider has landed in a corporate restructuring but it may be the most high-profile. The current evolving situation follows on from such previous fireworks as the failed IPO, a corporate reorganisation that swapped a US headco “inc.“ for an “LLC” (prompting litigation at the end of the last decade), and continuing market uncertainty as to the robustness of the brand.

UK members will want to monitor the situation and prepare for contingencies as US company experiences financial difficulties

On Monday 7 November 2023 WeWork Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in respect of its US business, and intends to file for recognition of those proceedings in Canada.

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF PALMER) V NORTHERN DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES COURT AND ANOTHER [2023] UKSC 38

Insolvency practitioners will welcome the Supreme Court’s recent decision that an administrator of a company appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) does not fall within the ambit of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992) (TULRCA) and therefore cannot be held personally liable under criminal law for the company’s failure to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 193 of TULRCA.

Making an out of hours qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”) appointment can be problematic due to the procedural requirements set out in Rule 3.20 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the “Rules”).

The Supreme Court has provided welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners in confirming that administrators of a company appointed pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") will not be criminally liable for a failure by the company to comply with redundancy notification requirements.

HM Treasury has published a response to its consultation on managing the failure of systemic digital settlement asset firms.