RICH PRO INVESTMENTS LIMITED v MARK SKELTON & Ors

When deciding whether to expedite an insolvency application, the court should apply a structured discretionary assessment. The relevant considerations are whether there is good reason for expedition, whether expedition would interfere with the good administration of justice, whether it would prejudice the respondents, and whether there are other special factors. The court should impose a swift but fair timetable where the dispute is intrinsically urgent, delay may prejudice a proposed takeover, the hearing is limited in scope, and adequate procedural protection can be given to the respondents.

Rich Pro Investments applied under Schedule B1, paragraph 74 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction in relation to the administration of ASA Resource Group Plc. The application alleged that continuation of the administration would cause unfair harm, but the court had not yet received responsive evidence from the administrators.

The immediate issue was procedural. The court had to decide whether to expedite the substantive hearing and set directions for evidence and skeleton arguments. The urgency arose from the proposed takeover of ASA and the need to resolve the dispute promptly.

1. Expedition ordered. The court treated the matter as one for directions and ordered an expedited two-day hearing, with the administrators’ evidence due by 6 November 2017, RPI’s evidence in reply by 13 November, and skeleton arguments and hearing bundles by 20 November. The hearing was to take place at the earliest available date after 24 November 2017.
2. The court applied the four-stage discretionary test identified by Vos LJ in Petter v EMC Europe Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 480: whether there was good reason for expedition; whether expedition would interfere with the good administration of justice; whether it would prejudice the respondents; and whether there were other special factors.
3. There was good reason for expedition because the dispute was intrinsically suitable for prompt resolution and continuing uncertainty could prejudice the proposed takeover. Expedition would not materially interfere with the administration of justice because the hearing was not a trial and was expected to last two days.
4. The timetable was fair to the administrators. It allowed them to put forward all evidence considered important to resisting the application, while ensuring that the evidence addressed broadly why the administration should continue and why continuation would not cause unfair harm. The court considered that no prejudice arose from the proposed timetable.
5. The court also indicated that any subsidiary seeking joinder should comply with the existing timetable. Although the subsidiaries did not have an absolute identity of interest with ASA, there was substantial identity of interest and cooperation could avoid duplicated evidence.