UK: Administration Developments (Spring 2007)

Last Updated: 8 August 2007
Article by Nicholas Pike

Re Farepak Food and Gifts Limited (in Administration)

[2006] EWHC 3272 (CH)

This case concerns the very high profile administration of Farepak Foods and Gifts Limited ("Farepak") which hit newspaper headlines in the autumn of last year. Farepak operated a Christmas hamper savings scheme whereby customers could spread their Christmas savings over the course of a year. Farepak operated its business through a system of approximately 26,000 agents. The agents would collect money from the customers each month and forward it to Farepak. By the end of November each year, the customer would have accumulated enough money to buy vouchers or a hamper or other goods in a range of stores.

However, in October 2006, Farepak ceased trading and went into administration. Farepak was unable to fulfil its Christmas 2006 orders and had over 100,000 creditors with claims of between £250 to £300 on average.

During the three days leading up to the administration of Farepak, the directors had sought to "ring-fence" the monies Farepak had received from customers so that those monies could be returned to customers if necessary. Farepak executed a declaration of trust (although there was a mistake as to the bank account identified in the declaration).

The administrators applied to court for directions as to whether and how they should distribute (a) the ring fenced monies and (b) the monies received during the administration period. The directors of Farepak argued that both sets of monies were held by Farepak on trust for the customers. The directors submitted that the trust arose either as (1) a Quistclose resulting trust; (2) a constructive trust arising out of the unconscionability of retaining customer monies received after the decision to stop trading had been made; or (3) an express trust.

Quistclose trust?

The court held that the agents were agents of Farepak (and not of the customers) and that it followed that monies paid by the customers to the agents were monies paid to the agents and taken by them as agents of Farepak. The judgment continued that there was no suggestion that an agent who received money from a customer was expected to keep it separate from other money (or indeed his own). In fact, the money was mixed with the money of other customers and paid over to Farepak in a lump sum.

It followed that there was no Quistclose trust because there was no suggestion that the money received by the agents ought to have been put to one side by Farepak pending the transmutation of the monies from credited money to goods or vouchers.

Constructive trust?

The directors argued that the monies paid to Farepak by customers once they had decided to cease trading should be held by Farepak as constructive trustee from the moment that those monies were received. In the earlier decision of Neste Oy v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1983] NLJ 597 the court held that it was contrary to the ordinary notion of fairness that the general body of creditors should profit from the "accident" of a payment made to a company at a time when there was bound to be a total failure of consideration and, therefore, a constructive trust was inferred. However, the court said that if it was to apply Neste Oy to the Farepak case, it should be applied by reference to the time at which the monies should be taken to have been paid and received by Farepak. In Neste Oy payment and receipt of the monies by the company were effectively simultaneous whilst, in contrast, in Farepak the date that the monies were paid to and received by the company (through its agents) was not necessarily the same as the date that the monies appeared as a credit in Farepak’s current account. The court felt that this created sufficient uncertainty for the court to state that the monies did not come within a constructive trust.

Express Trust?

The court held that, in principle, the mistake in the declaration of trust was rectifiable and that it did not scupper the directors’ argument that there was an express trust in favour of the customers. However, the court went on to say that, where monies had been paid to Farepak (via the agents), the relevant customers were already creditors of the company. If the court were to declare an express trust in those customers’ favour, those customers would be given a preference over other creditors. The court said that this was an obstacle, at a practical level, to any sums being paid out to customers on the basis of the rectified declaration of trust.


The court made the point that, whilst a proper case for a distribution to creditors had not been made out in the Farepak case, there was nothing to say that such an argument could not be made out in the future. Every case turns on its facts and it is important to seek legal advice where, during the course of an office-holder’s investigations, the issue of whether a trust has been created arises.

* * * * * * * * * *

Exeter City Council v (1) Vivian Murray Bairstow (2) James Patrick Martin and (3) Trident Fashions Plc

[2007] EWHC 400 – 2 March 2007

Trident Fashions Plc ("Trident") entered administration on 17 September 2003 and three IPs were appointed as joint administrators ("the First Administrators"). Trident operated the Ciro Citterio menswear retail chain. At the time of the appointment of the First Administrators, Trident traded from 98 retail units throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland, including a unit in Exeter ("the Exeter Property"). The First Administrators resigned as administrators on 20 April 2004. On the same day, two partners from a different firm were appointed joint administrators ("the Second Administrators") in their place. After an extension of the term, the administration finally expired on 17 March 2005.

On 7 April 2005, Trident’s only qualifying floating charge-holder appointed two partners of a third firm as joint administrators. This administration did not last long. The new administrators quickly concluded that the administration could not achieve the statutory purpose and applied to court for an order that the appointment should cease to have effect. On 27 April 2005, their appointment was discharged and Trident was ordered to be wound up.

The First Administrators and the Second Administrators had continued Trident’s occupation of the Exeter Property. Exeter City Council made an application for a declaration that non-domestic rates in respect of the Exeter Property, accrued while the Second Administrators were in office, should be payable as administration expenses under two heads:

  • Rule 2.67(1)(a) IR86 – as expenses properly incurred by the Second Administrators in performing their functions in the administration of the Company; or
  • Rule 2.67(1)(f) IR86 – as necessary disbursements incurred by the Second Administrators during the course of the administration.

Mr Justice Richards rejected the first alternative stating that rule 2.67(1)(a) IR86 should be confined to expenses where the administrator has incurred personal liability. However, the Judge accepted that nondomestic rates are payable as "necessary disbursements" under rule 2.67(1)(f) IR86.

The Judge referred to Re Toshoku Finance UK Plc in which the House of Lords decided that corporation tax on profits and rates incurred by a company in liquidation fell within rule 4.218(1)(m) IR86 as necessary disbursements and that payment of such expenses was not subject to any restriction that they must have been incurred for the benefit of the liquidation. The Judge decided that as rule 2.67(1)(f) IR86 was drafted in the same terms as rule 4.218(1)(m) IR86, the Insolvency Service had made a policy decision that non-domestic rates should be paid as an expense in an administration.

The case related to occupied non-domestic rates. However, the Judge commented that there is no basis for a distinction between occupied non-domestic rates and unoccupied non-domestic rates. Unoccupied non-domestic rates are also therefore an expense in an administration under rule 2.67(1)(f) IR86.


The Judge recognised that the automatic treatment of non-domestic rates as an expense of an administration is likely "to have an adverse effect on the achievement of rescues in at least some cases". However, he was not persuaded that the true meaning and intent of rule 2.67(1) IR86 had to be determined in the context of administrations and the policy considerations underlining them, which provide a very different context to liquidations i.e. to promote the rescue of companies and their businesses as opposed to simply realising assets and distributing the proceeds among creditors. The Judge stated that the decision as to whether non-domestic rates were administration expenses was one of policy.

Administrators will need to give serious consideration to whether the objective of the administration can continue to be achieved now that non-domestic rates are payable as administration expenses ahead of remuneration or distributions to floating charge holders and unsecured creditors. Unlike a liquidation, an administrator cannot disclaim a lease.

The current position on the payment of non-domestic rates can therefore be summarised as follows:

Pre Enterprise Act administration

  • Non-domestic rates are not automatically payable in a pre Enterprise Act administration in respect of either occupied or unoccupied property but the court may in appropriate cases direct their payment as an expense under the principle in Re Atlantic Computers Plc.

Post Enterprise Act administration

  • Non-domestic rates for both occupied and unoccupied property are necessary disbursements within rule 2.67(1)(f) IR86 and payable as an expense of the administration. Liquidation n Non-domestic rates for occupied property are necessary disbursements within rule 4.218(m) IR86 and payable as an expense of the administration


  • Non-domestic rates in respect of unoccupied property in a liquidation are not payable by virtue of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989.

This decision does have retrospective effect and the industry is therefore closely monitoring whether the rating authorities now intend to claim back non-domestic rates in respect of companies which went into administration after 15 September 2003.

* * * * * * * * * *

Re Lune Metal Products Limited (in Administration)

[2006] EWCA Civ 1720

This case concerned the pre Enterprise Act administration of Lune Metal Products Ltd ("Lune Metal").

The administrators had been unsuccessful in their first application for court sanction to make a distribution to unsecured creditors.

The administrators’ proposals, as approved, envisaged Lune Metal entering into a CVA once its assets had been realised; however, having resolved all outstanding matters in the administration, the administrators concluded that it would be more advantageous for creditors if they were paid out early. On this basis, the unsecured creditors would have received 35p in the pound whereas if Lune Metal went into liquidation or entered into a CVA the unsecured creditors would have received 31p in the pound.

Notwithstanding the benefit to creditors of making an early distribution, the court at first instance dismissed the administrators’ application for sanction to make a distribution. The judge there held that he was bound by the decision Re Designer Room Limited (2005) 1 WLR 1581 and that accordingly the court had no power under the Insolvency Act 1986 ("the Act") to sanction administrators paying out creditors on a free standing application (which is what it was being asked to do). It held that the administrators could not rely on section 14(3) of the Act as that provision envisaged the court giving an administrator directions "in connection with the carrying out of its functions" and that the administrators’ functions are governed by section 8(3) of schedule 1 to the Act (and do not extend to paying out to creditors). The court also held that its power to make an order under section 18(3) of the Act only came into play on a hearing of an application under section 18(1) (i.e. on an application to discharge, vary or add an additional purpose to an administration order).

It was suggested to the administrators that they should consider amending the application and apply for a discharge of the administration order. In this way, it was argued, the proposed distribution to creditors could be sanctioned on the basis that it was in connection with the discharge. On appeal, the administrators sought permission to vary their application, which was granted. The court agreed that it was able to sanction the proposed distribution to creditors under section 18(3) because the application to make the distribution was now ancillary to the application for discharge of the administration order.


There were a number of conflicting first instance decisions, some reported and others not, often with different reasoning applied on the issue of distributions to creditors in pre Enterprise Act administrations. Inevitably, this led to some confusion for administrators involved in these types of cases. The Court of Appeal commented that "those administering and advising on insolvencies, and those with interests in insolvencies, need to know where they stand as certainly, cheaply and promptly as possible". As such, this is a welcome decision from the Court of Appeal as it is now settled that administrators in a pre Enterprise Act administration may obtain the court’s sanction to make a distribution to creditors if the distribution is a condition of their discharge.

The Enterprise Act enables an administrator appointed on or after 15 September 2003 to make distributions to secured and preferential creditors and (with permission of the court) unsecured creditors under Paragraph 65 of Schedule BI.

* * * * * * * * * *

Re Crompton Leisure Machines Limited

[2006] EWHC 3583

This case answers the question as to whether, in pre Enterprise Act administrations, the court has power to authorise an administrator to make a distribution to creditors who would be preferential creditors in the event of a winding up.

The court made the point that this question had been considered at first instance in recent time by no fewer than eight judges who had reached different conclusions.

Having considered these differing first instance decisions, the court held that it had power, both under section 18(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and under its inherent jurisdiction to sanction a distribution to creditors of a company who would be preferential creditors in the event of a winding up on an application for discharge of the administration order.


The court in this case said that the time had come for the law to be taken as settled without the need for argument. Otherwise, the judge said, the costs of administration were being driven up to the detriment of the creditors. The court took a common sense approach and said that the "plain fact" was that there would be more money for creditors if an early distribution were made then there would be if the company was wound up and a distribution were made in the course of a winding up. In this case, the Insolvency Service, which stood to benefit if the company was wound up, did not oppose the application and in those circumstances the court had no hesitation in sanctioning the payment to creditors.

See also the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Lune Metals Products Limited (in administration) on the previous page.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.