The rules on the service of documents relating to insolvency procedures are far from straightforward and have a number of different sources: leading to potential gaps and inconsistencies. But the High Court has helpfully clarified how a notice of intention to appoint an administrator is to be served where the chargee is based outside of the UK.
The directors of Vybra Solutions sought to appoint administrators using the “out-of-court” method under para.22 of Schedule B1, Insolvency Act 1986. The company had a qualifying floating chargeholder and therefore, a notice of intention had to be given to the QFC holder before the appointment could be made.
Having delivered the Notice of Intention (NoI) to the address in Sweden the QFC holder gave for this purpose, the directors (and presumably the administrators-in-waiting) then had doubts as to whether this step had been taken validly. The directors sought the court’s directions ahead of appointing the administrators.
The judge considered the service provisions in Schedule 4, Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016, the Insolvency Practice Direction and Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Away from the insolvency context, a claim form sometimes can only be served out of the jurisdiction (ie, against a non-UK defendant) with court approval. Any subsequent documents to be served in those proceedings then follow the treatment given to their claim form.
However, the Insolvency Rules clearly state that an NoI is not to be treated as if it were a claim form even though it is the first document filed at court in a case such as Vybra. This meant there was no prior claim form as the reference point for deciding how to serve the NoI.
Rather than considering this a gap in the rules (which might have been fixed using the court’s general case management powers), the judge’s interpretation took the NoI outside of the awkward rules altogether: an NoI could simply be served abroad without court approval.
On a related issue, the judge held that the rule that documents must be sent to an addressee’s registered office, unless the court permitted otherwise, did still apply. However, the judge retrospectively approved the use of a different address as this was the one the QFC holder expressly gave for the service of the NoI.
Even though only a first instance decision, any clarifications of the service rules are to be welcomed. But the decision still highlights the importance of early, careful planning in relation to a proposed appointment, so as to avoid later delay, cost and potential challenge.
Vybra Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 1125 (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.