12 (1) An application to the court for an administration order in respect of a company (an “administration application”) may be made only by—
Definitions used in Schedule B1, paragraph 12 2
- the company
2 Section 233B does not apply in relation to a contract for the supply of goods or services to a company (“the company”) where any of paragraphs 3 to 11 applies.
Defined in Sch.4ZZA para.2 · see it in the full Act- company
(1A) In this Schedule, “company” means—
(a)a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 in England and Wales or Scotland,
(b)a company incorporated in an EEA State ..., or
(c)a company not incorporated in an EEA State but having its centre of main interests in a member State (other than Denmark) or in the United Kingdom .
Defined in Sch.B1 para.111(1A) · see it in the full Act
Cases considering Schedule B1, paragraph 12 31
Marko Ventures v London Antiaging Clinic Ltd
Applies the standing provision so that a creditor with a good arguable case that a debt is owing may apply for an administration order, even where the debt is disputed. The applicant had standing through an undisputed loan-note debt (see paras [32]; [43]).
KRF Services (UK) Ltd & Ors, Re
The provision was identified as the basis on which the Company could apply. The court concluded that the sole director’s valid resolution authorised that application. (see paras [30]-[34]) The provision was considered only as an alternative possible basis for the application. The court did not need to decide it. The court applied the provision by joining Keltbray as a creditor applicant and making the administration order on the joint application of all three applicants. (see para [34])
Abigal Boura v Lyhfl Limited
Interprets “the directors” as requiring authorisation by all or a majority of the board for a court application, where the decision is made at a properly convened board meeting. One of two directors therefore lacked standing without a valid board resolution. (see paras [5], [10]-[14], [20], [23])
- Lending Group Limited & Anor v LVR Capital Ltd & Anor
- In the matter of Aartee Steel Group Limited
- John Leslie Taylor v The Whitehall Partnership Limited & Anor.
- Interactive Digital Systems Ltd v VST Enterprises Ltd
- Duffy & Anor v Mederco (Cardiff) Ltd
- Strategic Advantage SPC v ARL O09 Ltd & Ors
- Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd & Ors, Re
- Baker & Anor v Biomethane (Castle Easton) Ltd (Rev 1)
- Bennett v Bosco Investments Ltd
- Brockstone Ltd v Force India Formula One Team Ltd
- Patley Wood Farm LLP v Brake & Ors (t/a Stay in Style)
- Information Governance v Popham
- Virtualpurple Professional Services Ltd, Re
- Frontsouth (Witham) Ltd & Anor, Re
- Pillar Securitisation SARL & Ors v Spicer & Anor (Court Administrators)
- Corbett v Nysir UK Ltd
- Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd
11 more judgments, and what each says about Schedule B1, paragraph 12, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.
Amendments and notes
1 notes from legislation.gov.uk
Modifications
- C1346Sch. B1 para. 12 applied (5.7.2018) by Housing and Planning Act 2016 (c. 22), ss. 106(8), 216(3) (with ss. 116, 117); S.I. 2018/805, reg. 3(a)