Statebourne (Cryogenic) Ltd, Re Insolvency Act 1986

A defect in filing a notice of appointment of administrators may be waived as an error of procedure where the statutory and procedural requirements for the appointment have otherwise been met. A notice need not identify a particular court centre within the Business and Property Courts unless the governing legislation or rules require it.

The ten-business-day period for appointment under Schedule B1 begins on the date when the notice of intention to appoint is filed. Filing one day late is an irregularity, rather than an invalidating defect, where it causes no substantial injustice. The administrators may remain in office, and prior acts need not be invalidated.

The directors of Statebourne (Cryogenic) Limited filed a notice of intention to appoint administrators on 17 January 2020. They attempted to file the notice of appointment on 31 January 2020, but the filing was rejected because it was headed with the name of the Newcastle Business and Property Court. A corrected filing was processed on 3 February.

The application concerned whether the original filing could be treated as validly made at 14:54 on 31 January, and whether the appointment was nevertheless out of time under paragraph 28(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. The central issues were the effect of the incorrect court heading and the consequences of filing one day outside the statutory period.

1. Incorrect court heading. The statutory and procedural requirements did not require the notice of appointment to identify a particular court centre within the Business and Property Courts. Assuming that the Newcastle heading was defective, it was an error of procedure capable of being remedied under CPR 3.10(b). The notice was therefore treated as filed and accepted at 14:54 on 31 January 2020. The court applied the reasoning in Carter More Solicitors Limited [2020] EWHC 186 (Ch), concerning an analogous CE-filing error.
2. Computation of time. Paragraph 28(2) of Schedule B1 expressly provides that the ten-business-day period begins on the date on which the notice of intention to appoint is filed. It therefore does not begin on the following working day. The notice of appointment was one day late. The court declined to adopt the expansive construction described in Re Keyworker Homes (North West) Limited [2019] EWHC 3499 (Ch).
3. Effect of lateness. The late filing was an irregularity within Rule 12.64 of the Insolvency Rules 2016. It caused no substantial injustice and did not invalidate the administration proceedings. The administrators were validly in office and were to continue in office. Pursuant to paragraph 104 of Schedule B1, no prior act of the administrators was invalidated by the defect.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.