This case concerned the validity of appointments of joint administrators, appointed in respect of QM Systems Ltd, where there were procedural defects in the notice of appointment (NOA).
It does appear to be the case that practitioners are still concerned over whether every “i” is dotted and “t” is crossed in an NOA. This may simply be a hangover from the days of prescribed forms where such errors were problematic.
If it is the case that, as a result, we are now conditioned to be hyper-cautious, this may explain why we continue to see practitioners seek confirmation from the court that their appointment is valid. They do not wish to take any risk that it is not, and indeed, there have been a number of cases where the appointment has been challenged based on procedural hiccups.
The current case is the most recent example of a practitioner doing this.
In this case, the court considered:
(a) the requirement in the Rules to file three copies of the NOA with the court (in this case only one had been filed);
(b) an error in the heading of the notice (in this case it referred to the appointment being made by the company not the directors); and
(c) the failure to file consent from the qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH) (who had consented but evidence hadn’t been filed with the NOA).
The judge determined that in respect of (a) and (b) that these were defects that were capable of remedy under r12.64 – as they were purely procedural in nature.
It is not completely clear whether (c) was remedied under r12.64 although it appears that it might have been. That is because the judge concluded there was no conceivable prejudice – the QFCH having consented – and that there would be no injustice if the defect was ‘cured’.