18(1)A person who appoints an administrator of a company under paragraph 14 shall file with the court—
(a)a notice of appointment, and
(b)such other documents as may be prescribed.
(2)The notice of appointment must include a statutory declaration by or on behalf of the person who makes the appointment—
(a)that the person is the holder of a qualifying floating charge in respect of the company’s property,
(b)that each floating charge relied on in making the appointment is (or was) enforceable on the date of the appointment, and
(c)that the appointment is in accordance with this Schedule.
(3)The notice of appointment must identify the administrator and must be accompanied by a statement by the administrator—
(a)that he consents to the appointment,
(b)that in his opinion the purpose of administration is reasonably likely to be achieved, and
(c)giving such other information and opinions as may be prescribed.
(4)For the purpose of a statement under sub-paragraph (3) an administrator may rely on information supplied by directors of the company (unless he has reason to doubt its accuracy).
(5)The notice of appointment and any document accompanying it must be in the prescribed form.
(6)A statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2) must be made during the prescribed period.
(7)A person commits an offence if in a statutory declaration under sub-paragraph (2) he makes a statement—
(a)which is false, and
(b)which he does not reasonably believe to be true.
Cases considering Schedule B1, paragraph 18 12
[2023] EWHC 522 (Ch) · 27 February 2023Interprets
Interprets paragraph 18 as requiring a compliant notice and statutory declaration, but not making every descriptive error automatically fatal. The notice was compliant when read as a reasonable recipient would understand it in context. (see paras [30], [48]-[50])
Applies the filing requirements for a notice of appointment and prescribed documents as part of the compliance analysis. The judgment’s conclusion turned principally on the meaning and effect of the notice and declaration. (see para [30])
Applies the requirement for a statutory declaration within the notice of appointment. The misdescription in the declaration did not invalidate the appointment because the notice conveyed its intended meaning to a reasonable recipient. (see paras [30], [48]-[50])
Applies the requirement that the declaration state that the appointing person holds the qualifying floating charge. Although the notice referred inaccurately to Mr Taylor, its context made clear that the executors were acting in their own capacity as holders of the relevant rights. (see paras [30], [36]-[37], [48]-[50])
Cites the requirement for a declaration that each floating charge relied upon was enforceable. The judgment found the debenture enforceable because the underlying loan was already in default. (see paras [19]-[20], [24], [30])
Cites the requirement for a declaration that the appointment complies with Schedule B1. The judgment upheld the appointment after finding the notice compliant and, alternatively, any defect procedural and waivable. (see paras [30], [48]-[52])
[2020] EWHC 2572 (Ch) · 30 September 2020
Confirms that an out-of-court appointment by a qualifying charge holder requires a statement that the purpose of administration is reasonably likely to be achieved. This supports the equivalent real-prospect requirement on a court application under paragraph 35. (see para [13])
Applies the requirement for the proposed administrator’s statement that the purpose of administration is reasonably likely to be achieved. The consents to act did not prevent the court from examining that issue itself. (see paras [39]-[40])
[2020] EWHC 1364 (Ch) · 28 May 2020
The court held that the notice of appointment had to contain the prescribed statutory declaration and identify the person making the appointment. The notice failed those requirements. (see paras [31]-[35])
What each judgment says about Schedule B1, paragraph 18 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.