Release from appointment irrelevant if appointment invalid

The Judge reviewed the various arguments raised through the applications, which centred on the circumstances surrounding the orders made releasing the administrators. These terms had different timings than those originally proposed by the administrators and there was a timing mismatch with filing of the final report to creditors.

Ultimately, the Judge was not being asked to determine the Applicants’ claim on the validity of the administration appointments and held that the applications were otiose.

This was on the basis that the claims set out in the draft particulars of claim were limited to the ground that the administrators were invalidly appointed and therefore, if that claim succeeds, they were never validly appointed and the provisions of the insolvency legislation would not apply in any event. 

If it fails then the draft particulars did not include an alternative claim that the administrators had not been released, which presumably will be rectified by an application to amend, if required.

In the matter of Glint Pay [2020] EWHC 3078 (Ch)

Our content explained

Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.

Mills & Reeve Sites navigation
A tabbed collection of Mills & Reeve sites.
My Mills & Reeve navigation
Subscribe to, or manage your My Mills & Reeve account.
My M&R


Register for My M&R to stay up-to-date with legal news and events, create brochures and bookmark pages.

Existing clients

Log in to your client extranet for free matter information, know-how and documents.


Mills & Reeve system for employees.