In Wonop ApS v Jagger (as joint administrator of FAI Realisations 2024 Ltd) [2026] EWHC 362 (Ch) the High Court was required to consider the effect of filing a notice under paragraph 84(4) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 – specifically, whether the registration of such a notice operates automatically to bring an administration to an end.

Although the factual background was unusual, Judge Briggs’ decision provides helpful clarity for insolvency practitioners and creditors alike as to when an administration comes to an end (and discharge from office takes effect).

Effect of filing a Para 84 Notice

Understanding the chronology in this case is important to appreciating why the issue arose.

  • Joint administrators were appointed out of court on 23 January 2024.
  • Shortly after their appointment the administrators effected a pre-pack sale of the company’s business and assets to an associated company, with the majority of the sale proceeds being paid to the secured creditor in circumstances where the security was taken shortly before appointment
  • The administration was extended by consent until 22 January 2026.
  • The applicant, a creditor, made an application on 16 January 2026 requesting the court remove the joint administrators without discharge from liability and for them to be replaced by new administrators.
  • The administrators received a copy of that application by email on 16 January, and subsequently by post.
  • On 20 January the appointed administrators in knowledge of the applicant’s application, filed a notice at Companies House pursuant to para 84 of Schedule B1 to move the company from administration to dissolution.  That notice was registered by Companies House on 26 January 2026.
  • The joint administrators also wrote to the court on 20 January to say that they were not aware of the applicant’s concerns before receiving the application and they had not been given adequate opportunity to prepare a detailed response.  They also invited the court to dismiss the applicant’s application on the basis that they considered that the purpose of the administration had been achieved and as such, they had filed a notice to move the company to dissolution and therefore there were no grounds to remove the administrators.
  • On 21 January the creditor’s application to remove the administrators was considered by Rajah J who granted interim relief to allow a longer period of notice to the administrators.  He also:
    • ordered the removal of the joint administrators (with discharge postponed)
    • appointed replacement administrators, on a limited basis; and
    • extended the administration period until March 2026.

Judge Briggs therefore had to determine the effect of the paragraph 84(4) notice in light of those orders. 

The Court’s analysis

The applicant creditor argued that Parliament could not have intended paragraph 84(4) to operate so as to bring an administration to an end in circumstances where:

  • an application to replace the administrators was already before the court; and
  • the court had purported to appoint replacement administrators and extend the administration.

It was submitted that the filing of the paragraph 84 notice should therefore be treated as ineffective.

Judge Briggs rejected that argument having considered

He held:

“Paragraph 84(4) Sch. B1 is intended to operate as a self-executing termination of the office of administrator upon registration of a filed notice”

The consequence was that, upon registration of the notice on 26 January 2026, the administration came to an end.

Judge Briggs in making his decision, rejected any suggestion that Mr Justice Rajah had intended to make an order that disapplied the effect of paragraph 84 Sch. B1, even if that were possible.   Although Ralph J had been informed that a para 84(4) notice had been sent to Companies House, there was no discussion in court about the effect of that notice. 

The position of the “replacement” administrators

The judgment does not analyse the status of the “newly” appointed administrators.   The logical consequence of the decision is that, upon registration, there was no subsisting administration within which replacement administrators could act.

Comparison with Paragraph 83 Notices

In seeking to challenge the effectiveness of the paragraph 84(4) notice, the applicant relied on earlier authorities concerned with the effect of filing a notice under paragraph 83 of Schedule B1, which governs the transition from administration to creditors voluntary liquidation.  The judgment is therefore also a helpful reminder of the effect and timing of a para 83 notice.

The relevant cases concerning para 83 were:

•           Re E Squared Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 3414;

•           Re Globespan Airways Ltd [2013] 1 WLR 1122.

The problem faced by the administrators in those cases was the lapse in time between filing the para 83 notice, the time that the notices were registered by Companies House, and the fact that in the interim the administration had automatically come to an end at the end of the administration period. 

In E Squared the court decided that the companies in this case would be wound up upon registration of the para 83 notice at Companies House, notwithstanding that at that point the administrators’ appointment had ceased to have effect – it was sufficient that the para 83 notice had been sent by the administrators whilst they were still in office.  Leaving in this case, a gap between the end of the administration and the start of the liquidation.

The Court of Appeal in Re Globespan Airways, agreed that the notice under para 83 comes into effect when Companies House register the notice, but took a different approach to the “gap” between filing and registration.  Instead taking the view that the administration is deemed to continue until the notice is registered.

In Wonop, Judge Briggs reaffirmed that registration is the operative act.  The statutory consequences flow automatically at that point.  The paragraph 83 authorities did not assist the applicant.

Concluding Comments

The decision provides welcome clarity. Once a para 84(4) is registered, the administration ends. 

For practitioners they must, however, be confident that the para 84(4) notice should be filed, because once sent, and registered, the court cannot undo that.

There might be some leeway with Companies House prior to registration to stop the notice being registered, if sent in error or too early, but that cannot be assumed because the legislation requires the notice to be registered once received.   

In such a case, or where, for example a creditor wishes to prevent the administration coming to an end a better option might be to ask the court to make a order requiring Companies House not to register the notice.

The case also begs the question, would Ralph J have made different orders on 21 January had he been properly addressed on the consequences of filing a para 84(4) notice?