header-logo header-logo

Insolvency

24 January 2014
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Re Parmeko Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) and other companies [2014] All ER (D) 39 (Jan)

The purpose of the court’s powers under para 55.2 of Sch B1 to the Act was to give directions to the administrator in circumstances where there might be some real question as to the course that he should follow, and it unnecessarily incurred expenditure in the administration if the court was asked to give directions when no effective purpose was to be served by those directions. If the proposals that were put to creditors were specific as to what the administrator was going to do, and had the effect that he was mandated to exercise his powers in one particular way rather than in another, then the fact that the proposals had not been approved or had been specifically rejected by the creditors might give rise to a real question as to what the administrator was to do. Unless and until proposals had been approved by the creditors, or directions had been given by the court, an administrator had the extensive powers that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll