
Print Options
PrintThe Whole
Act
PrintThe Whole
Schedule
PrintThe Whole
Part
PrintThis
Section
only
Changes over time for: Paragraph 39


Llinell Amser Newidiadau
This timeline shows the different points in time where a change occurred. The dates will coincide with the earliest date on which the change (e.g an insertion, a repeal or a substitution) that was applied came into force. The first date in the timeline will usually be the earliest date when the provision came into force. In some cases the first date is 01/02/1991 (or for Northern Ireland legislation 01/01/2006). This date is our basedate. No versions before this date are available. For further information see the Editorial Practice Guide and Glossary under Help.
Status:
Point in time view as at 17/03/2011.
Changes to legislation:
Insolvency Act 1986, Paragraph 39 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 09 March 2025. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.

Changes to Legislation
Changes and effects yet to be applied by the editorial team are only applicable when viewing the latest version or prospective version of legislation. They are therefore not accessible when viewing legislation as at a specific point in time. To view the ‘Changes to Legislation’ information for this provision return to the latest version view using the options provided in the ‘What Version’ box above.
Effect of administrative receivershipE+W+S
[39(1)Where there is an administrative receiver of a company the court must dismiss an administration application in respect of the company unless—
(a)the person by or on behalf of whom the receiver was appointed consents to the making of the administration order,
(b)the court thinks that the security by virtue of which the receiver was appointed would be liable to be released or discharged under sections 238 to 240 (transaction at undervalue and preference) if an administration order were made,
(c)the court thinks that the security by virtue of which the receiver was appointed would be avoided under section 245 (avoidance of floating charge) if an administration order were made, or
(d)the court thinks that the security by virtue of which the receiver was appointed would be challengeable under section 242 (gratuitous alienations) or 243 (unfair preferences) or under any rule of law in Scotland.
(2)Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether the administrative receiver is appointed before or after the making of the administration application.]
Yn ôl i’r brig