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

Fecha: 18-Ago-2025

HHJ CAWSON KC

HHJ CAWSON KC:

Introduction

This judgment concerns two applications relating to the administration of Waterfield Developments Blackburn Limited (“the Company”), namely:

An application dated 12 June 2025 (“the Milltom Application”) brought by Milltom Builders Ltd (“Milltom”) against the Company, and its administrator, Engin Faik (“Mr Faik”). By this application, Milltom seeks an order pursuant to paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) that it be permitted to proceed with enforcing a charging order over, and seeking an order for sale (and all consequential and ancillary orders) in respect of the property known as and situated at Waterfield Mill, Waterfield Avenue, Darwen registered at HM Land Registry under Title No. LAN106879 (“the Property”).

ii)

An application dated 18 July 2025 (“the Faik Application”) brought by Mr Faik, as administrator of the Company, against Milltom whereby he seeks an order pursuant to paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 IA 1986 that it “be recorded that he has power to sell [the Property]”, together with orders that upon sale, and after payment of reasonable costs, the sale proceeds be remitted to his solicitors’ deposit account, and that thereafter he be “permitted to adjudicate on the sums still claimed to be owed to [Milltom].”

It is common ground between the parties that the Property should be sold. However, Milltom maintains that it should be permitted to continue existing proceedings, presently subject to the moratorium provided for by paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 IA 1986, seeking an order for sale of the Property (“the Order for Sale Proceedings”), with conduct of the sale being given to Milltom, to enable it to obtain payment of the sums due to it under the charging order. On the other hand, Mr Faik contends that he should have conduct of the sale as part of the administration process, which could be achieved by the court making an order under paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 IA 1986. Further, Mr Faik raises issues as to the amount (if any) due to Milltom, issues that he maintains are most appropriately resolved within the administration of the Company.

The Milltom Application was first before me on 11 July 2025, when I gave directions, including in relation to the bringing of the Faik Application. The Milltom Application was supported by the first witness statement of its director, Gary William Flitcroft (“Mr Flitcroft”), dated 12 June 2025 (“Flitcroft 1”). Pursuant to the directions given on 11 July 2025, the following witness statements have been filed and served:

Mr Faik’s witness statement dated 18 July 2025 (“Faik 1”);

ii)

Mr Flitcroft’s witness statement dated 25 July 2025 (“Flitcroft 2”); and

iii)

Mr Faik’s witness statement dated 1 August 2025 (“Faik 2”).

Somewhat unusually in respect of an application of the present kind, both Milltom and Mr Faik agreed, and I permitted, that Mr Flitcroft and Mr Faik might each be cross examined on their witness statements, and they were both cross-examined at the hearing.

Mr Douglas Cochran appeared on behalf of Milltom, and Mr James Couser appeared on behalf of Mr Faik. I am grateful to them for their written and oral submissions.