The court was prepared to provide for immediate release of
administrators from office and to wind up a company without
presentation of a petition.
Administrators applied to court for their release, the winding
up of the company and their appointment as liquidators.
The company's remaining asset was a leasehold interest with
an ultimate landlord, the immediate landlord having surrendered its
The company was in breach of various lease provisions and the
landlord was not prepared to assign the lease to a purchaser, nor
surrender the lease. The administrators were therefore unable to
realise any value for the lease nor disclaim it.
As there were no other assets to realise and the secured
creditor was no longer prepared to fund the administration, the
administrators contended that the statutory purpose could no longer
be achieved and applied to court to wind up the company and be
appointed as liquidators so that they could disclaim the lease.
In advance of the application the administrators had written to
all creditors informing them of their intentions and that they
would be seeking immediate (rather than the usual 28 day period)
release. No creditor came forward and the Judge agreed that it was
right to issue the application to bring the administration to an
end as it appeared that the statutory purpose was now
The Judge was also prepared to immediately release the
administrators from liability as no creditor had come forward on
that issue either and to make a winding up order, notwithstanding
that there was no winding up petition before the court.
This decision demonstrates clear authority for administrators to
obtain immediate release and a winding up order without the need to
present, serve and advertise a winding petition, where creditors
are fully appraised of the situation and raise no objection.
Graico Property Company Limited (in administration) 
EWHC 2827 (Ch)
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On 26 October 2016, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & 6 others v (1) Baglan Abdullayevich Zhunus (2) Maksat Askaruly Arip (3) Shynar Dikhanbayeva  EWCA Civ 1036.
With high cost and inefficiency top of the list of party concerns about the arbitral process, institutions, arbitrators, practitioners and indeed legislators are keen to find ways to address those concerns.
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).