Insolvency Act 1986, section 20

Release of administrator

Part II Administration Orders

(1)A person who has ceased to be the administrator of a company has his release with effect from the following time, that is to say—

(a)in the case of a person who has died, the time at which notice is given to the court in accordance with the rules that he has ceased to hold office;

(b)in any other case, such time as the court may determine.

(2)Where a person has his release under this section, he is, with effect from the time specified above, discharged from all liability both in respect of acts or omissions of his in the administration and otherwise in relation to his conduct as administrator.

(3)However, nothing in this section prevents the exercise, in relation to a person who has had his release as above, of the court’s powers under section 212 in Chapter X of Part IV (summary remedy against delinquent directors, liquidators, etc.).

Definitions used in section 20 2

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
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

Cases considering section 20 7

Parkinson Engineering Services Plc v Swan & Anor

[2009] EWCA Civ 1366 · 21 December 2009

The court applied the statutory release as a complete defence to the company’s direct proceedings. That defence meant the claim could not be determined on its merits unless the liquidator was substituted and permitted to proceed under section 212. (see paras [26]; [28])

Adcamp LLP v Office Properties PL Limited & Ors

[2026] EWCA Civ 50 · 6 February 2026

Section 20 supplied the administrators’ statutory release from liability in Parkinson. The Court used that substantive defence to illustrate a claim that could not succeed against the original named claimant. (see paras [52]-[54], [71])

MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd & Ors. v Mark McLaren Class Representative Ltd

[2022] EWCA Civ 1701 · 21 December 2022

The former provision supplied the release defence which prevented an existing company from continuing its claim in Parkinson. It was relevant only to distinguishing that substitution case. (see paras [89]–[91])

What each judgment says about section 20 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.