Sophie Perhar v Louise Freestone & Ors

Sophie Perhar v Louise Freestone & Ors

The appointment of administrators was valid because the floating charge was enforceable due to serious and ongoing breaches of trust and contract by the applicant, and any defects in service or timing of the demand did not cause substantial injustice as the company could not pay the sums demanded. There was no improper motive in the appointment; it was made to protect the lender's financial position.

Parties
Applicant: Sophie Perhar; Respondent: Louise Freestone; Respondent: Paul Mallatratt; Respondent: Synergy in Trade Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application / Judgment After Trial of Application to Declare Administration Appointment Invalid
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Administrators, Enforceability of Floating Charge, Breach of Trust, Improper Motive in Administration, Service of Demand, Remedies for Defective Enforcement
Insolvency Commercial Law Contract Appointment of Administrators Enforceability of Floating Charge Breach of Trust Improper Motive in Administration Service of Demand +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophie Perhar

Applicant

Louise Freestone

Respondent

Paul Mallatratt

Respondent

Synergy in Trade Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application / Judgment After Trial of Application to Declare Administration Appointment Invalid

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of administrators was invalid due to unenforceability of the floating charge under paragraph 16 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the appointment was invalid due to non-compliance with contractual terms or improper motive under paragraph 81 of Schedule B1
  3. 3 Whether service of demand was defective and caused substantial injustice

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of administrators was valid because the floating charge was enforceable due to serious and ongoing breaches of trust and contract by the applicant, and any defects in service or timing of the demand did not cause substantial injustice as the company could not pay the sums demanded. There was no improper motive in the appointment; it was made to protect the lender's financial position.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to declare the appointment of administrators invalid is dismissed.