In Re Float Capital Ltd, the court considered how liquidators’ remuneration should be approved where the overwhelming majority creditor was unable to vote because of a conflict of interest.
Float Capital entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation following administration. Approximately 98% of unsecured claims were held by PTC, itself in administration. One of Float Capital’s joint liquidators, Geoffrey Bouchier, was also a joint administrator of PTC. The court agreed that it would therefore be inappropriate for PTC effectively to approve remuneration payable to Bouchier’s firm and his co-liquidator.
For Bouchier, whose remuneration had not previously been fixed, the court approved a time-cost basis under rule 18.23 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, with a fee estimate of £362,986.50. Importantly, although rule 18.23 requires an office holder first to attempt creditor approval, the court held that this did not require a futile process which could only be determined by a conflicted vote or fail. The court nevertheless said that canvassing minority creditors or seeking directions earlier would have been the more orthodox and better course.
The position of co-liquidator Ben Woodthorpe was different. His time-cost basis as administrator carried into the liquidation under rule 18.20(4). The court therefore rejected reliance on rule 18.23, but held that rules 18.24 and 18.28 permitted the court to approve an increased liquidation fee estimate of £1,272,872.
The key takeaway is that IPs should address remuneration conflicts early, and be aware of the strict 18-month deadline under rule 18.23. Where creditor scrutiny is disabled, the court will scrutinise remuneration closely, and approved estimates remain ceilings, not targets.
Re Float Capital Ltd [2026] EWHC 1891 (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.