Float Capital Limited, Re

A court may review its own insolvency order under rule 12.59(1) where exceptional circumstances arise, including binding authority not previously before it showing that the order lacked a jurisdictional foundation. Under the remuneration code in Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, rules 18.24 and 18.28 do not permit an office-holder to increase time-cost remuneration through an increase in amount; rule 18.30 provides the prescribed route. If that decision procedure is incapable of producing an effective determination, Insolvency Act 1986, s 112 permits the court to resolve the remuneration question. The power operates on, not against, the statutory machinery. Mere inconvenience is insufficient, and the court cannot substitute itself for a creditor.

The court reviewed its earlier remuneration orders under rule 12.59(1). The earlier judgment, [2026] EWHC 1891 (Ch), had increased and approved joint liquidator Mr Woodthorpe’s remuneration by reference to a fee estimate, relying on rules 18.24(b) and 18.28 and, alternatively, s 112. After that judgment, the court identified the Court of Appeal decision in Frost v The Good Box Co Labs Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 252, which preferred a narrow construction of rule 18.24. The issue was whether the Woodthorpe Order should be reviewed and whether s 112 could operate when rule 18.30’s creditor decision procedure could not produce an effective determination.

The court reviewed and discharged the Woodthorpe Order. The Bouchier Order remained unaffected.

1. Review jurisdiction. Rule 12.59(1) permits review, rescission or variation of an order in exceptional circumstances. Applying Fitch v Official Receiver [1996] 1 WLR 242 and Papanicola v Humphreys [2005] EWHC 335 (Ch), the court treated the jurisdiction as cautious and supervisory, and not as a substitute for an appeal. The emergence of binding authority not previously cited, the prompt identification of the defect, and the proportionality of correction by the original court satisfied that threshold.
2. Remuneration rules. The Court of Appeal in Frost v The Good Box Co Labs Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 252 adopted a narrow construction of rule 18.24. Its references to amount, rate and change of basis correspond to the alternatives in rule 18.16. Rule 18.30 provides the separate route for exceeding a time-cost fee estimate. That construction applies to applications under rule 18.28 regardless of the office held. The Woodthorpe Order therefore lacked a jurisdictional foundation.
3. Section 112. Where creditors fixed the remuneration basis, rule 18.30(2)(b) allocates the request to them; the court route in rule 18.30(2)(c) applies where the court fixed the basis. Mere inconvenience cannot trigger Insolvency Act 1986, s 112. However, where the prescribed machinery is incapable of producing an effective determination, s 112(1) permits the court to determine the remuneration question arising in the winding up. The court operates on the remuneration procedure and cannot substitute itself as a creditor.
4. Application. The machinery could not operate because the major creditor could not appropriately vote owing to conflict, the remaining creditors had been wholly passive, s 246ZF(2) required affirmative voting rather than deemed consent, and the cost of convening a futile procedure would burden the estate. The determination was just and beneficial under s 112(2) because the work had been done and the alternatives were non-payment or an ineffective estate-funded procedure. The Woodthorpe Order was discharged, with the form of consequential order left for submissions.

This was a first-instance review of orders made following the court’s earlier judgment, [2026] EWHC 1891 (Ch) ; no appellate history is stated.