New guidance is the latest in a move to iron out the practical wrinkles from Part 26 and 26A of the Companies Act 2006. On 18 September 2025, the Chancellor of the High Court published a revised Practice Statement regarding Schemes of Arrangement and Restructuring Plans (the “Practice Statement”). This follows a consultation on a draft launched in May 2025, in order to further the aim of updating the previous practice statement in line with practical experiences over the last five years. The Practice Statement will apply to cases initiated on or after 1 January 2026.

The Practice Statement, and its predecessor, supplements Part 26 and 26A of the Companies Act 2006 and seeks to assist in identifying issues at an earlier stage that could impact the court’s jurisdiction to sanction a scheme or a plan, the composition of classes of creditors and members, and the process for convening meetings. The Practice Statement also introduces a range of case management measures. All of which are aimed at identifying and dealing with contested issues in an efficient manner.  Much of what is proposed is targeted at resolving issues early and conserving court resources.

The Practice Statement introduces several procedural steps including the requirement to issue a claim form, file a listing note for the purposes of timetabling, notifying affected parties in writing of the scheme or plan and informing the court of the extent that creditors were consulted in the proposal stage of the scheme or plan.

Responses from consultation

During the consultation period, industry raised a number of concerns and many of those were related to the introduction of the claim form requirement to secure a court date and how, being a public document, an announcement of restructuring could worsen the applicant’s financial position and weaken the prospects of the arrangement’s success. Previously, industry practice was to ask the court informally to reserve a date for a hearing. Understandably this filled up the court diary, and sometimes those dates were not then needed and could have been used for other matters, but equally securing a date was important because of limited availability. The nature of a restructuring often requires plans to be put in place in the very short term, not several months down the line.

The draft Practice Statement also included proposals that required applicants to demonstrate to the court that they had engaged with all of its creditors before a plan could be sanctioned. There was concern that this would introduce a procedural requirement that would unnecessarily increase the price of implementing a plan.

Has the Practice Statement addressed concerns?

Although a claim form is still required to secure a court hearing, applicants can request that it is not disclosed publicly. The court has discretion to limit access to the court file and/or can make an order that the identity of the company should not be disclosed. While some confidentiality concerns have been navigated, the court will need to be persuaded that confidentiality is required.

The requirement to inform the court of the extent to which the applicant has engaged with its creditors and members has been watered down a little from the draft Practice Statement. The applicant is now only required to do so ‘where relevant’. It is not clear what constitutes relevance or how it might affect the court’s decision-making or scheduling.

The Practice Statement has addressed some of industries’ concerns, but its practical impact remains to be seen. 

Does the Practice Statement make RPs more accessible?

RPs in general have faced criticism for being too expensive for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Practice Statement does make the process more predictable and may promote savings by minimising the likelihood of expensive appeal processes and challenges which could be a good thing for SMEs concerned about the potential for costs to spiral.

However, the additional responsibilities on the applicant, and front-loading the process of engagement with creditors, may continue to price out SMEs. Having said that, early creditor engagement was important in securing creditor support for the plan proposed by DSTBD Ltd, a mid-market plan that received sanction earlier this year.

Although, the Practice Statement will only apply to cases brought after 1 January 2026, practitioners will need to consider its impact on proposed plans now.