*/
Company – Administrator. The applicant creditors of a company in administration applied for orders that: (i) the remuneration of the respondent administrators was excessive and should be either disallowed entirely or reduced; and (ii) that the administrators should pay the costs of the application personally and not as an expense of the administration. The Companies Court rejected the contention that the administrators, appointed under Insolvency Act 1986, could not or should not have made the statement as to the statutory purpose, as required under para 29(3)(b) of Sch B1 to the Act, which had led to their appointment. Further, the argument that they should not be entitled to any remuneration at all for their services was rejected. Once the decision to appoint administrators had been made, the responsibility on the prospective administrator in considering whether the statement as to the statutory purpose could be made was to look ahead at what would or might happen during the administration if he was appointed, and not behind at the motives which might have led the directors to choose to make the appointment.
Company – Administrator. The applicant creditors of a company in administration applied for orders that: (i) the remuneration of the respondent administrators was excessive and should be either disallowed entirely or reduced; and (ii) that the administrators should pay the costs of the application personally and not as an expense of the administration. The Companies Court rejected the contention that the administrators, appointed under Insolvency Act 1986, could not or should not have made the statement as to the statutory purpose, as required under para 29(3)(b) of Sch B1 to the Act, which had led to their appointment. Further, the argument that they should not be entitled to any remuneration at all for their services was rejected. Once the decision to appoint administrators had been made, the responsibility on the prospective administrator in considering whether the statement as to the statutory purpose could be made was to look ahead at what would or might happen during the administration if he was appointed, and not behind at the motives which might have led the directors to choose to make the appointment.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
