Laurence Pagden & Anor v Craig Andrew Ridgley

Rule 18.34 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 concerns remuneration and expenses payable from assets forming part of the administration, including the statutory fund enlarged by floating-charge assets. It does not regulate remuneration and expenses agreed with a fixed-charge holder for realising fixed-charge property and paid from its proceeds. The structure of Part 18 supports that construction. An appeal cannot ordinarily introduce an unargued inherent-jurisdiction challenge where the first-instance judge made no findings on it.

The appeal was brought against an order of ICC Judge Greenwood dated 28 November 2024. The Judge dismissed a challenge under rule 18.34 to remuneration and expenses paid to the administrator of two companies from proceeds of selling land subject to fixed charges.

The central issues were the scope of Part 18, whether an alternative challenge could be brought under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, and the effect of an agreement made by the predecessor security trustee.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court agreed that the amounts paid to the administrator for realising the land could not be challenged under rule 18.34.
2. Insolvency law distinguishes the company’s fund, including assets available through floating-charge provisions, from fixed-charge assets in which the charge-holder has the proprietary interest. Each fund ordinarily bears its own costs. Clear language would be required before the Rules could be construed as regulating remuneration for realising fixed-charge property.
3. Part 18’s creditor decision-making machinery would materially curtail the secured creditor’s ordinary control over its security if it applied to fixed-charge realisations. Rule 18.38, which addresses liquidators and trustees realising assets for secured creditors and permits an alternative agreement, reinforced the distinction.
4. An administrator’s fiduciary duties are moulded to the statutory role. They do not inevitably prevent an administrator from realising fixed security without the consent of all creditors or a court order, provided the statutory duties, including the duty to avoid unnecessary harm to creditors as a whole, are respected.
5. Ground 2 was dismissed. The appellants had not sought inherent-jurisdiction relief before the Judge, who made no findings on it. The court expressed no final view on the merits of that possible remedy.
6. Ground 3 did not arise.

• High Court (Insolvency and Companies List): appeal from the order of ICC Judge Greenwood dated 28 November 2024; appeal dismissed.