CR-2024-MAN-000540 - [2025] EWHC 2159 (Ch)

Fecha: 18-Ago-2025

Conclusions

Order to be made

92.

In the above circumstances, I propose to refuse the Milltom Application for permission pursuant to paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to continue the Order for Sale Proceedings, and to make an order pursuant to paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 IA 1986 on the Mr Faik’s Application enabling Mr Faik to sell the Property free of Milltom’s ICO/FCO and Supahome’s charges, but on the basis that priorities in the net proceeds of sale would be preserved pursuant to paragraph 71(4).

93.

I propose to direct net proceeds of sale following the sale of the Property by Mr Faik be held by him pending agreement, or alternatively determination by the court as to how the same ought to be paid and applied if there is no agreement relating thereto.

94.

However, on the basis that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to regulate the conduct of administrations (see Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc (supra) at 527, 529 and 543 and Re Mirror Group (Holdings) Limited [1993] BCLC 538 at 543), I propose to give directions now to enable the resolution of outstanding issues. I will leave it to Counsel to seek to agree the precise terms of the order to be made, but in essence I propose to direct that:

Milltom’s schedule referred to paragraph 35 above, taken together with the evidence contained in Mr Flitcroft’s two witness statements stand as Milltom’s proof for the purposes of rr. 14.3 and 14.4 IR 2016.

ii)

Within a limited period of time, say 28 days, Mr Faik is to call for Milltom to produce any document or other evidence which, pursuant to r. 14.4(3) IR 2016, he reasonably considers is necessary to substantiate the whole or any part of Milltom’s claim.

iii)

Within a limited period of time, say 28 days, of Milltom providing the further documentation or evidence (if any) requested by Mr Faik, or within 42 days from the date of the order if no such further documentation is requested, Mr Faik is to either admit or reject Milltom’s proof pursuant to r. 14.7 IR 2016.

iv)

It would then be open to Milltom to appeal any adverse decision in respect of its proof pursuant to r. 14.8 IR 2016.

To the extent that the proof is admitted (in whole or in part), then payment should be made to Milltom out of the net proceeds of sale within, say, 14 days of admission to proof, or within 14 days of sale, whichever is the later.

95.

As indicated above, I consider it appropriate that I should declare that any indebtedness of the Company to Milltom conferred by the ICO and the FCO has priority over the indebtedness of the Company to Supahome conferred by its charges, subject to Supahome having permission to apply to vary or discharge this declaration bearing in mind that it is not presently before the court. As I understand it there is no issue as to the amount owed by the Company to Supahome, which has been stated to be £64,544.06. However, if there is an issue as to this, then an equivalent proof process as I propose to direct should apply to Milltom should apply thereto.

96.

No attendance will be required on the hand down of this judgment, and I will direct that all consequential issues that cannot be agreed between the parties, including as to the form of order and costs, be adjourned to be dealt with at a consequentials hearing to be listed as soon as possible. I will extend the time for lodging an appellant’s notice with the Court of Appeal until 21 days after this adjourned hearing.