103
(1)
Where a company is in administration, a person may be appointed to act as administrator jointly or concurrently with the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.
(2)
Where a company entered administration by administration order, an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) must be made by the court on the application of—
(a)
a person or group listed in paragraph 12(1)(a) to (e), or
(b)
the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.
(3)
Where a company entered administration by virtue of an appointment under paragraph 14, an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) must be made by—
(a)
the holder of the floating charge by virtue of which the appointment was made, or
(b)
the court on the application of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.
(4)
Where a company entered administration by virtue of an appointment under paragraph 22(1), an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) above must be made either by the court on the application of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company or—
(a)
by the company, and
(b)
with the consent of each person who is the holder of a qualifying floating charge in respect of the company’s property or, where consent is withheld, with the permission of the court.
(5)
Where a company entered administration by virtue of an appointment under paragraph 22(2), an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) must be made either by the court on the application of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company or—
(a)
by the directors of the company, and
(b)
with the consent of each person who is the holder of a qualifying floating charge in respect of the company’s property or, where consent is withheld, with the permission of the court.
(6)
An appointment under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only with the consent of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.
Cases considering Schedule B1, paragraph 103 3
[2018] EWHC 1936 (Ch) · 20 July 2018Interprets
The judgment interprets paragraph 103(1) as permitting a person to act jointly or concurrently with existing administrators. The provision does not remove the further appointment, standing and consent conditions in paragraph 103 (see paras [52]-[55]; [62]-[63]).
Where administration began through a qualifying floating charge-holder’s appointment, paragraph 103(3)(a) permits that charge-holder to appoint an additional administrator. The applicants could not use this route (see paras [54]-[63]).
The court interprets paragraph 103(3)(b) as permitting a court appointment only on the application of the existing administrators. The applicants therefore lacked standing to seek the additional appointment (see paras [55]; [62]-[63]).
The judgment applies paragraph 103(6) as requiring the consent of the existing administrators. Their active opposition independently prevented the proposed appointment (see paras [55]; [62]-[63]).
[2016] EWHC 1965 (Ch) · 29 July 2016
Paragraph 103, read as a whole, provided the jurisdictional basis for appointing concurrent administrators. The court found the relevant requirements satisfied and exercised the jurisdiction. (see paras [19]-[27])
Paragraph 103(1) conferred jurisdiction to appoint concurrent administrators where the company was in administration. The court found that jurisdictional condition satisfied. (see paras [19], [26]-[27])
Paragraph 103(5) required the application for appointment of concurrent administrators to be made by the persons acting as administrators. The application satisfied that requirement. (see para [20])
Paragraph 103(6) required the consent of the existing administrators. Their consent was given, so the requirement was satisfied. (see para [21])
[2015] EWHC 3624 (Ch) · 3 December 2015
Provides the route for appointing the four proposed liquidators as administrators before their appointment as liquidators. The court used this mechanism to avoid an unnecessary intervening appointment of the Official Receiver (see paras [9], [21]-[22]).
Provides the specific basis for appointing the four proposed liquidators as short-term administrators, whose limited function was to consent to their appointment as liquidators (see para [22]).
What each judgment says about Schedule B1, paragraph 103 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.