SCHEDULE B1 ADMINISTRATION
74(1)A creditor or member of a company in administration may apply to the court claiming that—
(a)the administrator is acting or has acted so as unfairly to harm the interests of the applicant (whether alone or in common with some or all other members or creditors), or
(b)the administrator proposes to act in a way which would unfairly harm the interests of the applicant (whether alone or in common with some or all other members or creditors).
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(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“in administration” has the meaning given by paragraph 1,
Defined in Sch.B1 para.111(1) · see it in the full Act(a) a company is “in administration” while the appointment of an administrator of the company has effect,
Defined in Sch.B1 para.1(2) · see it in the full Act1 (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 ActThe unfair-prejudice jurisdiction concerns an administrator's exercise of powers or discretions. It does not permit interference when the administrator follows the priority required by legislation. (see para [121])
Paragraph 74 adopts a wide, objective standard of unfair harm. It is not confined to unlawful, commercially unjustified or discriminatory conduct, although the administrator’s statutory functions and the collective interests of creditors carry great weight (see paras [70]-[85]). The administrators’ continuing refusal to correct the admitted proof fell most naturally within the provision concerning present conduct which unfairly harms the applicant’s interests (see para [71]). The court considered that the continuing refusal might also be characterised under the alternative limb of paragraph 74(1) (see para [71]). A paragraph 74 claim may concern action whether or not it lies within the administrator’s Schedule B1 powers. This confirms that paragraph 74 extends beyond remedies for unlawful action (see paras [81]-[84]).
The provision was interpreted as requiring unfair harm to a creditor or member in that capacity. Good-faith conduct in accordance with Schedule B1 obligations did not constitute unfair harm. (see paras [75]-[77])
40 more judgments, and what each says about Schedule B1, paragraph 74, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.