Welcome to the Trowers & Hamlins Insolvency Bulletin. In this edition, we focus on recent decisions of interest to office holders.
Anamitra Mukhopadhyay summarises Marko Ventures Ltd v London Antiaging Clinic Ltd [2025] EWHC 340 (Ch) concerning a contested administration application, with useful reminders on who has standing to make an application and what the evidence must show.
James Lancaster considers Asertis v Melhuish [2024] EWHC 2819 (Ch) in connection with materials obtained pursuant to s236 and the subsequent use of confidential information by office holders and the assignee of certain claims.
Katie Farmer and Anamitra Mukhopadhyay together review the Supreme Court's decision in El-Husseiny v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4, on s423 and whether a debtor's disposal of an asset in which he had no beneficial interest can entitle a claimant to a remedy.
Charlotte Tucker reviews Hawksworth v Stanley [2025] EWHC 139 (Ch) concerning hybrid claims and the Court's approach to rectifying defects.
Anamitra Mukhopadhyay also discusses a recent decision relating to the standing of former office holders to make applications relating to remuneration under the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016, in her article on Frost v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch).
Katie Farmer outlines the Court's restitutionary approach to the rule in Ex parte James in Lennon v Health Care Resourcing Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 3034 (Ch).
If you have any suggestions or requests for future editions of the Trowers Insolvency Bulletin, please get in touch with one of the team.
Click the links below to view our latest insights and news:
A contested application for an administration order
Antiaging Clinic Ltd (Company) carried on the business of a health, beauty and wellbeing clinic known as The Galen Clinic. The shareholders of the Company were Marko Ventures Ltd (MVL) (owning 60% shares) and London Med Aesthetics Ltd (LMA) (owning 40% shares).
Balancing Transparency and Confidentiality: Using s.236 Documents in Assigned Insolvency Claims
The court allowed material obtained by a liquidator through the court's compulsory powers under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986"), to be provided to a litigation funder, and for that funder to use that material in pursuing assigned causes of action against the company's directors.
El-Husseini v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4 – section 423
The Supreme Court has confirmed that remedies under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allows creditors to obtain remedies if transactions entered into at an undervalue have the purpose and effect of prejudicing claims the creditors have against the debtor, even in circumstances where the debtor has not disposed of an asset in which he himself has a beneficial interest.
The consequences of bringing a hybrid claim under the Insolvency Rules 2016 only
The recent decision in Hawksworth v Stanley [2025] EWHC 139 (Ch) reiterated previous case law (Manolete Partners v Hayward [2021] and In Re Traxx (Aggregates) Limited [2023]) that hybrid claims cannot be brought under one "insolvency umbrella". Where office holders wish to pursue a mixture of office holder claims and company claims, they will need to issue separate proceedings, and this is an absolute requirement.
In Frost & Anor v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch), the Court accepting that former administrators do have standing to make an application to increase amount of their remuneration under rules 18.24 and 18.28 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016.
A restitutionary approach to Ex parte James - Lennon v Healthcare Resourcing Group Limited
Liquidators of HCL Social Care Limited (HCL) made an application for directions as to the entitlement to a business rates rebate realised during the liquidation.
