Vybra Solutions Ltd, Re

Permission is not required to serve a notice of intention to appoint administrators on a qualifying floating chargeholder outside the jurisdiction. Such a notice is not a claim form and does not initiate court proceedings. The service provisions in Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, read with Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Rules 2016, do not make prior permission a condition of service. Where the prescribed address is unsuitable or service is effected at another address at the chargeholder’s invitation, the court may approve that service under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4. Service at the invited address may thereby constitute valid service.

The directors of Vybra Solutions Ltd applied for directions concerning service of a notice of intention to appoint administrators on Treyd AB, a Swedish qualifying floating chargeholder. The notice was first sent by email, which Treyd AB declined to accept, and was then personally served at a business address in Stockholm supplied by the chargeholder for service. That address differed from its registered office.

The application raised two issues: whether permission was required to serve the notice outside the jurisdiction, and whether service at the supplied business address was valid despite the address requirements in Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Rules 2016.

1. Permission to serve out. No permission of the court was required to serve the notice of intention to appoint administrators on the qualifying floating chargeholder outside the jurisdiction. Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Rules 2016 applies Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 according to whether the document is a claim form or another document. The notice was expressly treated as another document.
2. The notice was not properly characterised as a claim form. It did not commence proceedings against the recipient. Its function was to notify the qualifying floating chargeholder of the proposed appointment and give it an opportunity to initiate an alternative insolvency process.
3. Although the table in Schedule 4 ordinarily required service at the chargeholder’s registered office unless the court directed otherwise, paragraph 1(2) empowered the court to approve service at another address. It was just and convenient to approve service at the Stockholm business address because Treyd AB had itself invited service there.
4. The court therefore declared that permission to serve out was unnecessary, approved service at the address where personal service occurred on 31 March 2026, and declared that service validly occurred there.