BXL Services, Re [2012] EWHC 1877 (Ch) (10 July 2012)

BXL Services, Re [2012] EWHC 1877 (Ch) (10 July 2012)

Failure to give notice of intended appointment to prescribed parties under paragraph 26(2) of Schedule B1 does not invalidate the appointment, even if such notice is required, following the purposive approach adopted in Re Virtualpurple and approved in Re Ceart Risk.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1877 (Ch)
Parties
Company: BXL Services; Applicant: Applicant Directors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Judgment on Validity of Appointment of Administrators
Outcome
Declaration that the appointment of administrators was valid.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Administrators, Notice Requirements, Statutory Construction
Insolvency Law Company Law Appointment of Administrators Notice Requirements Statutory Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BXL Services

Company

Applicant Directors

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Judgment on Validity of Appointment of Administrators

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to give notice in prescribed form to the company invalidates the appointment of administrators under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to give notice of intended appointment to prescribed parties under paragraph 26(2) of Schedule B1 does not invalidate the appointment, even if such notice is required, following the purposive approach adopted in Re Virtualpurple and approved in Re Ceart Risk.

Court Disposition

Declaration that the appointment of administrators was valid.

Orders

  • Appointment of joint administrators declared valid.