Powered by Lexis+®
CASE STUDY

“The forms and precedents section is essential so that I can quickly and easily look up provisions to include in templates or bespoke project contracts.”

RWE

Access all documents on Public interest winding up

Public interest winding up meaning

What does Public interest winding up mean?
A court-ordered liquidation sought to protect the public, not because the company cannot pay its debts. In practice, it is used to stop companies trading where conduct appears abusive, misleading or unlawful (for example investment scams, serious regulatory breaches or persistent non-compliance), even if the company is solvent. In England & Wales and Scotland it is a statutory remedy: the Secretary of State may petition for winding up in the public interest under the Insolvency Act 1986 (section 124A), typically after an official investigation. The High Court (or Court of Session in Scotland) decides whether a winding-up order is justified. If granted, the Official Receiver is usually appointed liquidator and disqualification proceedings may follow. In Northern Ireland, equivalent powers exist under the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, with petitions brought by the Department to the High Court. In Ireland, the High Court may order a winding up in the public interest under the Companies Act 2014, commonly on a petition by the Corporate Enforcement Authority or the Minister, often following an inspectors’ report. This remedy is distinct from insolvency-based and “just and equitable” petitions. It is a targeted public protection tool used across the UK and Ireland with broadly consistent effect.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Public interest winding up

NEWS
HMRC must give unlimited cross-undertaking on appointing provisional liquidators: Court of Appeal confirms creditor status on winding-up petitions, rejecting public law enforcement exception (England and Wales)

Insolvency, revenue law, and civil procedure (The Commissioners for HMRC v Payroll & Pension Services (PPS Umbrella Company) Ltd) Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Payroll & Pension Services (PPS Umbrella Company) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 995 What are the practical implications of this case? Before this ruling, first-instance decisions had split along two paths: one held that HMRC was discharging a public interest or law-enforcement role and so need not provide any cross-undertaking in damages; the other treated HMRC, for these purposes, as no different from a creditor enforcing a debt, requiring a cross-undertaking as the price of the order. The Court of Appeal confirmed the latter strand is right. Because appointing provisional liquidators can have a catastrophic impact on a company’s business, if such relief is wrongly obtained the company now has at least some assurance that it may pursue the undertaking. Accordingly, HMRC must proffer a cross-undertaking when seeking the order. This provides a measure of protection where the appointment proves unwarranted. What was the...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
UK restructuring and insolvency weekly round-up: key cases, legislation and guidance—6 February 2025

In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency The office-holder R&I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Corporate insolvency processes Public law defences in winding up petitions under section 85 of the Finance Act 2022 (Re Purity Ltd) HMRC issued a public interest winding up petition under section 85 of the Finance Act 2022 (FA 2022), which was listed for trial. After the petition was presented, the company commenced judicial review proceedings contesting HMRC’s decision to petition, and then sought a stay of the winding up case. Its position was that public law defences could not be aired at the petition trial, as such arguments were for the Administrative Court alone. The court decided that FA 2022, s 85 petitions should be approached in the same way as public interest petitions brought under section 124 of the Insolvency...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
Restructuring & Insolvency Weekly: corporate civil enforcement reforms consultation; Kroll pre-action disclosure; Supreme Court fee rises; Nicholson v IPA trust ruling; PAYE appeal stay; EU harmonisation update (26 March 2026)

In this issue: Key R&I law developments Restructuring Insolvency litigation The office-holder Tax and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Key R&I law developments Insolvency Service publishes February 2026 enforcement outcomes management information The Insolvency Service has refreshed its enforcement outcomes management information tables for February 2026. Figures indicate 114 director disqualifications, together with eight bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions. See: LNB News 19/03/2026 36. Insolvency Service launches consultation on corporate civil enforcement reforms The Insolvency Service has opened a consultation on corporate civil enforcement reforms, seeking feedback on 11 proposals to update the director disqualification and company winding-up framework. Headline reforms comprise mandatory disqualification where public interest winding-up orders are made, creation of a new director restrictions regime for less serious misconduct, and moving disqualification decision-making from the courts to the Secretary of State, with a...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Public interest winding up

PRACTICE NOTES
CDDA 1986 directors’ disqualification pre-action protocol: investigation, office-holder reporting, evidence and fairness, three-year limitation and section 16 notice (England, Wales and Scotland)

Pre-action investigation and protocol Who brings proceedings under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986? All proceedings under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) are instituted by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (SoS), within the Department for Business and Trade. As a matter of practice, the Insolvency Service performs the SoS’s functions and duties. Proceedings are commenced either in the SoS’s own name or, in compulsory winding up cases, by the official receiver (OR) acting under the SoS’s direction. Each undertakes the same responsibilities, exercising identical functions for these purposes, and, for convenience, any reference to the SoS in this Practice Note should be read as including the OR. Also note that directors of dissolved companies that have not been through an insolvency process may likewise be disqualified under CDDA 1986, s 6 following amendments introduced by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021; however, such disqualifications fall outside the scope of this Practice Note...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Comprehensive glossary of UK restructuring and insolvency terms, covering Companies Act schemes, Part 26A plans, IA 1986 processes, and cross‑border concepts including COMI, UNCITRAL and assimilated EU rules.

This glossary sets out numerous expressions regularly encountered in the restructuring & insolvency sphere. Words shown in bold within definitions are themselves explained in other entries in this glossary as well. A Article X The MLIJ contains a single provision named Article X, aimed at jurisdictions that have already implemented the MLCBI, like England, or are weighing its adoption. Article X states: ‘Not withstanding any prior interpretation to the contrary, the relief available under [insert a cross-reference to the legislation of this State enacting Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency] includes recognition and enforcement of a judgment’ (see Practice Note: UNCITRAL model law on recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments (MLIJ): Article X). Asset-backed security (ABS) A form of security anchored by asset pools, for example loans, leases, and credit card receivables. Assimilated law From 1 January 2024, ‘retained law’ has been retitled ‘assimilated law’. The body of domestic law originally arising from EU obligations, created by the European...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Company investigations under the Companies Act 1985: s432 inspector inquiries, s447 information-gathering powers, offences relating to documents, and potential outcomes including prosecution, director disqualification and public interest winding up

under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) oversees companies to safeguard investors, suppliers and customers against corporate wrongdoing. Where the conditions set out in section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 (CA 1985) arise, the Secretary of State (SoS) can appoint inspectors to examine a company’s affairs. The Insolvency Service’s Legal Services Directorate (LSD) serves as the principal criminal enforcement authority for insolvency-related fraud and corporate misconduct. The investigatory powers provided by the CA 1985 can also be applied to overseas companies doing business in the UK...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related UK Parliament Acts about Public interest winding up

UK PARLIAMENT ACTS
[124A Petition for winding up on grounds of public interest]

[(1)     Where it appears to the Secretary of State from—(a)     any report made or information obtained under Part XIV [(except section 448A)] of the Companies Act 1985 (company investigations, &c.),[(b)     any report made by inspectors under—(i)     section 167, 168, 169 or 284 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or(ii)     where the company is an open-ended investment company (within the meaning of that Act), regulations made as a result of section 262(2)(k) of that Act;(bb)     any information or documents obtained under section 165, 171, 172, 173

UK PARLIAMENT ACTS
[SCHEDULE B1 Administration]

(1)     For the purposes of this Act “administrator” of a company means a person appointed under this Schedule to manage the company's affairs, business and property.(2)     For the purposes of this Act—(a)     a company is “in administration” while the appointment of an administrator of the company has effect,(b)     a company “enters administration” when the appointment of an administrator takes effect,(c)     a company ceases to be in administration when the appointment of an administrator of the company ceases to have effect in accordance with this Schedule, and(d)     a company does not cease to be in administration merely because an administrator vacates office (by reason of resignation, death or otherwise) or is removed from office.