*/
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.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
