000			02154cab a22002295a 4500
001			L138745
008			070709e20070302xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u138745
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aExeter City Council V (1) Vivian Murray Bairstow (2) James Patrick Martin (3) Trident Fashions plc _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] EWHC 400 (Ch), 2 March 2007. Exeter City Council (E) applied for a declaration that rates for retail premises occupied by a respondent company (T), while in administration, were payable as expenses of the administration process. After the initial administration period expired, new administrators (B) were appointed. B?s administration expired six months later and T was compulsorily wound-up by petition of a creditor. E argued that the rates were an expense of the administration and took priority over payments to the administrators under the Insolvency Rules 1986, the relevant section being modelled on the Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.B1. The special advocate argued that the rescue culture of administrations was different to liquidations, and these considerations were detailed in consultation papers issued prior to the new administration regime. "Held": The question of whether rates and other necessary payments during administration was payable as an expense was not for the courts to make. By using the language of the Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.B1 within the Insolvency Rules 1986 that policy had been made clear. Non-domestic rates should rank as expenses in an administration. Although not raised here, it was found that unoccupied property rates would be subject to this ruling.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aEXETER CC V BAIRSTOW AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aINSOLVENCY ACT 1986
650	2	4	_aINSOLVENCY RULES 1986
650	2	4	_aTOSHOKU FINANCE UK PLC (IN LIQUIDATION) RE (2002) UKHL 6, 2002 1 WLR 671
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-RETAIL PROPERTY-TRADING FACILITIES AND SHOPS
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/400.html _zView the article free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c78977 _d78977