High Court Rules on Rejected Proof of Debt Appeal in BV8 Limited v BV9 Limited Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3048 (Ch)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice’s decision in BV8 Limited v BV9 Limited (in administration) & Anor addresses a complex insolvency matter involving the appeal of a rejected “Proof of Debt” under Rule 14.8 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. The case underscores essential principles of corporate insolvency, contractual agreements, and the role of administrators in managing creditor claims. This article analyses the legal principles applied in the case and outlines the judicial reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Key Facts

BV8 Limited (BV8) appealed the decision made by the administrators of BV9 Limited (BV9) to reject a Proof of Debt claiming £1,074,036.91. This sum was asserted to relate to BV8’s earned interest margin from loan book assignments to BV9. Despite this claim, the appeal was presented differently, focusing on payments made by BV8 to BV9 on 16 December 2020. These were characterized as loans, implying that BV9 had a debt to BV8. The administrators contested that they had not been made aware of the updated claim until shortly before the trial, arguing this shift did not reflect the initial Proof of Debt or the parties’ understanding before the administration.

Several legal principles were pivotal in this case:

  1. The Nature of Proof of Debt: The necessity for detailed information in the Proof of Debt aligns with Rule 14.4, enabling administrators to adjudicate claims efficiently and minimize costs detrimental to the overall recoveries available for distribution.

  2. Application of the Entire Agreement Clause: This clause precludes the introduction of terms that would modify the written agreement. The court emphasized its role in preventing parties from incorporating terms unsupported by the formal contractual documentation, citing The Inntrepreneur Pub Company (GL) v East Crown Limited and MWB Business Exchange Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd.

  3. Board Resolutions and Directors’ Duties: The case considered the implications of board resolutions that suggested an agreement between BV8 and BV9 that conflicted with the terms of the formal Deed of Assignment. Directors must act in compliance with the Companies Act 2006, particularly regarding conflicts of interest and the declaration of personal interests in transactions.

  4. Estoppel: BV8’s estoppel claim, based on an amendment made to form TR4 following the administrators’ requests, was unsuccessful. The court found no misrepresentation upon which BV8 could reasonably rely, given the context and specificity of the agreed terms.

  5. The Reliability of Financial Records: The significance of accurate and contemporaneous record-keeping for understanding company transactions under the Companies Act 2006 and the implications for insolvency proceedings were highlighted.

  6. Inter-Company Accounts and the Need for Caution: The judgment draws attention to the unreliability of financial evidence created post hoc, stressing the need for authenticated and contemporaneous evidence in supporting claims in insolvency proceedings.


The appeal was dismissed. Key findings led to this decision, including:

  • The formulation of BV8’s claim had substantively changed during the proceedings.
  • There was not sufficient evidence or factual clarity to address the appeal based on the evolved claims.
  • BV8 did not amend nor provide a new proof incorporating the altered claim.
  • The purported estoppel claim was unsupported based on the correspondence exchanged and the circumstances.


The case law BV8 Limited v BV9 Limited (in administration) & Anor reaffirms the demanding requirements for submitting credible claims of debt in insolvency procedures. Parties cannot diverge widely from initial claims submitted in proofs of debt without proper notification and formal amendments. Entire agreement clauses hold substantial weight in resolving disputes regarding company indebtedness. Furthermore, the precision of record-keeping and the role of administrators are influential, both in terms of statutory compliance and when addressing creditor claims. The judicial emphasis on accurate record-keeping and financial records’ reliability, together with a methodical approach to changes in claims, underscores the importance of diligence and consistency in insolvency proceedings.

Related Summaries