69In exercising his functions under this Schedule the administrator of a company acts as its agent.
Definitions used in Schedule B1, paragraph 69 3
- administrator
1 (1) For the purposes of this Act “administrator” of a company means a person appointed under this Schedule to manage the company’s affairs, business and property.
Defined in Sch.B1 para.1(1) · see it in the full Act“administrator” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 and, where the context requires, includes a reference to a former administrator,
Defined in Sch.B1 para.111(1) · see it in the full Act- 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 69 19
Robert Nicholas Jason Scholfield & Anor. v Matthew David Smith & Anor.
Confirms that an administrator acts as the company’s agent when exercising functions under Schedule B1. That supported treating the former administrators as agents and therefore Affiliates under the settlement. (see paras [51]; [53])
In the matter of Central Properties Holdings Limited (in administration)
The court applied paragraph 69 in holding that the administrators remained officers of the company and retained ultimate managerial power while the CVA was in place. That status weighed against a prospective discharge from liability (see para [19]).
One Blackfriars Ltd, Re
The provision made the administrators agents of the Company. This agency relationship supported the conclusion that negligence by a marketing agent could give rise to a claim by the Company against that agent, rather than strict liability of the administrators. (see paras [227]; [221]-[222])
- PJSC Uralkali v Rowley & Anor
- Brewer & Anor v Iqbal
- Davey v Money & Anor
- Lictor Anstalt (A Company) v MIR Steel UK Ltd & Ors
- Exeter City Council v Bairstow & Ors
- R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court and another
- The Joint Administrators of LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Limited v The Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) and others
- The Joint Administrators of LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd v Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc
- The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Robinson Webster (Holdings) Limited
- Sophie Rebecca Perhar v Louise Freestone & Ors (Re The Sustainable Bathroom Company Ltd)
- Gillan v HEC Enterprises Ltd & Ors
- Lomas & Ors (Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)) v Burlington Loan Management Ltd & Ors
- Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA, Joint Liquidators of v Slaughter and May (a firm)
- Collins & Aikman Europe SA Collins & Ors, Re Insolvency Act 1986
- SCI Games Ltd. v Argonaut Games Plc & Ors
1 more judgment, and what each says about Schedule B1, paragraph 69, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.
Amendments and notes
3 notes from legislation.gov.uk
Modifications
- C1410Sch. B1 paras. 59-75 applied (with modifications) (E.W.) (15.3.2024) by The Water Industry (Special Administration) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/205), regs. 2(2), 5(1), 19-25 (with reg. 64)
- C1436Sch. B1 para. 69 applied (with modifications) (17.2.2009 for certain purposes, otherwise 21.2.2009) by Banking Act 2009 (c. 1), ss. 145, 263(1)(2) (with s. 247); S.I. 2009/296, arts. 2, 3, Sch. para. 3
- C1437Sch. B1 para. 69 applied (with modifications) (8.7.2021) by The Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021/716), regs. 2, 37, Sch. 2 paras. 4-6 (with reg. 5) (as amended (4.1.2024) by S.I. 2023/1399, regs. 1(2), 4, 11)