Carter Moore Solicitors Ltd, Re

An inadvertent error in using the CE-filing system may be remedied under CPR PD 51O para 5.3(2) and CPR 3.10(b) where the substantive insolvency filing requirements are satisfied. The court should consider the nature of the error, whether it was inadvertent, the filing’s compliance with the governing legislation and rules, the information available to the court, the speed of correction and any prejudice. Where those factors make the case obvious, refusing relief may elevate form over substance. A remedial order may preserve the filing’s original date and time, with consequential declarations where clarification of an office-holder’s appointment serves a useful purpose.

Begbies Traynor filed a notice of intention to appoint administrators for the company during court hours. It later filed a notice of appointment, but inadvertently selected the CE-filing system’s “New Case” option rather than “Existing Case”. The filing otherwise complied with Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 and rule 3.24 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. The court clerk rejected the filing and the corrected filing was accepted after court hours, endorsing the notice with the following Monday’s date and time. The issue was whether the original filing could be validated and treated as effective when made, so that the administrators’ appointment complied with the statutory time limit.

1. The application was granted. The court declared that the notice of appointment was to be treated as validly filed and accepted at 14.17 hrs on Friday 24 January 2020, and directed that it be endorsed accordingly. The administrators’ appointment therefore took effect at that time.
2. The original filing complied fully with Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 and rule 3.24 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. Neither required the filing to identify that it concerned an existing case. That requirement arose from para 2.3(c) of CPR PD 51O, principally to locate the filing electronically and calculate the correct fee.
3. Selecting the wrong CE-filing option was an error of procedure capable of remedy under para 5.3(2) of CPR PD 51O and CPR 3.10(b). Relevant considerations included that the filing occurred during court hours, satisfied the substantive statutory and procedural requirements, involved an inadvertent error, disclosed the existing case number, resulted in payment of a higher fee, was corrected within three minutes of notification, and caused no possible prejudice.
4. Those factors made this an obvious case for relief. The court’s order meant that the original filing did not fail Acceptance and was treated as validly made within court opening hours. The questions concerning out-of-hours CE-filings did not arise for decision.
5. The court also had jurisdiction to make a useful declaration concerning the validity and timing of the appointment, referring to GEMA v Spark Energy [2018] EWHC 2522 (Ch), which in turn referred to Rolls-Royce v Unite The Union [2010] 1 WLR 318 and FSA v Rourke [2002] CP Rep 14.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate stage is stated in the judgment.