The Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026
- Department: Ministry of Justice
- Made under: Insolvency Act 1986
Amended insolvency procedures by removing fax filing, increasing London bankruptcy petition limits, and updating judicial terminology.
These Rules amend the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 to modernize court procedures and administrative requirements for corporate and personal insolvency.
The instrument removes fax as a permitted method of document delivery, simplifies electronic filing requirements to a single copy, and replaces the term 'registrar' with 'judge' across various procedural categories.
It also increases the financial threshold for presenting bankruptcy petitions in the London Insolvency District from £50,000 to £500,000 and clarifies the approval process for insolvency practitioners seeking to exceed their original fee estimates.
These changes apply to insolvency practitioners, the courts, the Insolvency Service, and parties involved in insolvency proceedings in England and Wales.
Arguments For
The explanatory note states that the amendments follow a review of the operation of the 2016 Rules to ensure they remain current with modern practices.
The document notes that references to fax delivery are being removed because this method is no longer available to the courts or the Insolvency Service.
Proponents argue the changes for electronic delivery, requiring only a single copy instead of multiple, streamline administrative requirements.
The amendment to rule 8.24(2)(c) is intended to align terminology regarding "COMI proceedings" with previous post-EU Exit regulatory changes.
The expansion of the definition of "judge" and removal of "registrar" aims to reflect updated judicial titles and Practice Directions.
Arguments Against
Legal practitioners might argue that the significant increase in the London Insolvency District financial limit from £50,000 to £500,000 could create jurisdictional confusion for smaller claims previously handled there.
Parties lacking reliable internet access or specialized electronic filing software may face difficulties following the formal removal of fax as a permitted delivery method.
Creditors' groups might question the clarity of the new approval process for exceeding fee estimates if the original basis was not fixed by a court or committee.
Professional bodies may observe that the lack of a full impact assessment means potential costs to practitioners transitioning to these updated procedural rules have not been formally quantified.
- —(1) These Rules may be cited as the Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026. (2) These Rules extend to England and Wales only. (3) These Rules come into force on 22nd June 2026.
This section establishes the official name of the instrument and limits its legal jurisdiction to England and Wales.
It sets the commencement date for all provisions within these Rules as 22nd June 2026.
- The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 are amended as follows.
This section serves as a formal instruction to modify the existing Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.
It identifies the target legislation for the subsequent amendments.
- In rule 1.2 (defined terms)— (a) for the definition of 'judge', substitute "'judge' means an appropriate judge in accordance with any relevant Practice Direction;"; (b) in the definition of 'Practice Direction' after 'the CPR' insert 'and includes any practice direction on insolvency proceedings'; (c) omit the definition of 'registrar'.
This section updates technical definitions used within insolvency proceedings.
It replaces the specific definition of 'judge' with a reference to Practice Directions, expands the scope of 'Practice Direction' to include insolvency-specific guidance, and deletes the term 'registrar', reflecting changes in judicial titles.
- In rule 1.45 (electronic delivery of documents), after paragraph (6) insert— '(7) Electronic delivery does not include delivery by fax.'
This amendment explicitly excludes fax transmissions from the legal definition of 'electronic delivery'.
It clarifies that sending a document via fax no longer satisfies requirements for electronic document transmission.
- In rule 1.46— (a) for the heading, substitute 'Electronic delivery of documents to or by the court'; and (b) after paragraph (2), insert— '(3) Where these Rules require more than one copy of a document to be delivered to the court, or by the court to a party, and the document is delivered electronically, only one copy is to be delivered.'
This section updates the rules governing how documents are sent to or by the court electronically.
It mandates that even if underlying rules normally require multiple physical copies of a document, a single electronic file is sufficient when using digital delivery methods.
- In rule 3.20 (appointment taking place out of court business hours: procedure)— (a) in paragraph (1), omit sub-paragraph (a) and the 'or' after it; (b) in paragraph (3), omit 'telephone number and'; (c) in paragraph (4)— (i) omit 'telephone number and'; (ii) for 'them', in both places where it occurs, substitute 'it'; (d) in paragraph (5), omit sub-paragraph (a) and the 'or' after it; (e) in paragraph (6), omit 'fax transmission report or'; (f) in paragraph (8), omit 'faxed or'; (g) in paragraph (9)— (i) in sub-paragraph (a), omit 'faxed or'; (ii) in sub-paragraph (b), omit 'fax transmission report or'; (h) in paragraph (10), for sub-paragraph (a) substitute— '(a) the date and time when, according to the appointer's hard copy of the email, the notice was sent; and'.
This section removes all procedural references to faxing for administrators appointed outside of standard court business hours.
It replaces the requirement to provide fax reports with a requirement to use the date and time recorded on a hard copy of the sent email as evidence of notice.
- In rule 3.21(1)(j)(ii) omit 'fax transmission report or'.
This section removes the requirement to include a fax transmission report in the record of an out-of-hours appointment of an administrator by a company or its directors.
It aligns this specific notice requirement with the broader removal of fax-based procedures.
- In rule 3.22 (appointment taking place out of court business hours: legal effect)— (a) in paragraph (2)(a), omit 'fax transmission or'; (b) in paragraph (3), omit 'fax transmission report or'.
This section clarifies the legal effective time of an administrator's appointment when made out of hours.
It deletes references to fax transmissions as a method for determining when such an appointment becomes legally valid.
- In rule 3.24(1)— (a) in sub-paragraph (i)(ii), for 'appointment; and' substitute 'appointment.'; (b) omit sub-paragraph (j).
This section amends the list of documents that must be delivered to the court following an out-of-hours appointment by a qualifying floating charge holder.
It removes the specific requirement to provide a fax transmission report as part of the filing.
- In rule 3.25(2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (j)(ii), for 'administrator; and' substitute 'administrator.'; (b) omit sub-paragraph (k).
This section amends filing requirements following an out-of-hours appointment by a company or its directors.
It removes the obligation to deliver a fax transmission report to the court as part of the formal notification process.
- In rule 8.24(2)(c) (report of the creditors' consideration of a proposal), for 'main, territorial or non-EU proceedings' substitute 'COMI proceedings, establishment proceedings or proceedings to which the EU Regulation as it has effect in the law of the United Kingdom does not apply'.
This section updates the terminology used to describe different types of insolvency proceedings in a chairman's report on a company voluntary arrangement.
It adopts terms like 'COMI proceedings' (Center of Main Interests) to maintain consistency with post-Brexit legal frameworks.
- In rule 9.4 (delivery of application), omit paragraph (4).
This section removes a paragraph that previously regulated the delivery of court applications via fax.
This reflects the total removal of fax as a recognized method for delivering formal insolvency applications to court.
- In rule 10.11(1)(a) and (b) (court in which petition is to be presented), for '£50,000' substitute '£500,000'.
This section increases the financial threshold for bankruptcy petitions that must be presented to the High Court in the London Insolvency District.
It raises the limit from £50,000 to £500,000, meaning petitions for debts lower than this new amount will generally be handled elsewhere.
- In rule 10.36 (procedure for making a bankruptcy application and communication with the adjudicator), omit paragraph (5).
This section deletes a provision that governed fax communications between an applicant and the bankruptcy adjudicator.
All communications regarding bankruptcy applications must now use methods other than fax.
- In rule 10.87 (vacation of office on completion of bankruptcy (sections 298(8) and 331)), for paragraph (3)(f) substitute— '(f) that the trustee will vacate office under section 298(8) when, after the end of the prescribed period, the trustee— (i) files with the court a notice that the trustee has given notice to the creditors under section 331, where the bankruptcy is based on a creditor's petition; or (ii) delivers to the official receiver a notice that the trustee has given notice to the creditors under section 331, where the bankruptcy is based on a debtor's application; and'.
This section specifies different notification paths for a trustee finishing a bankruptcy case, depending on how the bankruptcy started.
If started by a creditor, the trustee must notify the court; if started by the debtor, the trustee must notify the official receiver.
- In rule 12.2 (performance of functions by the court)— (a) in paragraph (1), for 'judge, District Judge or a registrar.' substitute 'judge.'; (b) in paragraph (2), for 'The registrar or District Judge' substitute 'A judge'.
This section consolidates the list of officials authorized to perform court functions under these rules.
It replaces the separate mentions of 'District Judge' and 'registrar' with the singular term 'judge'.
- In rule 12.30(7) (general power of transfer)— (a) in the opening words for 'by—' substitute 'by a judge.'; and (b) omit sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).
This section centralizes the power to transfer insolvency proceedings between courts.
It removes the specific distinction between transfers made by a judge or a registrar, authorizing any 'judge' to exercise this power.
- In rule 12.34(5) (consequential transfer of other proceedings), for 'registrar', in both places it occurs, substitute 'judge'.
This section updates the terminology for transferring related legal proceedings.
It requires a 'judge' rather than a 'registrar' to give notice of such transfers to other courts or divisions.
- In rule 12.37 (application for a block transfer order)— (a) in paragraph (1), for 'the registrar or District Judge' substitute 'a judge'; (b) in paragraph (7)(c), for 'registrar or District Judge' substitute 'judge'.
This section identifies who may hear an application for a 'block transfer order' (moving multiple cases between practitioners).
It shifts this responsibility from a registrar or District Judge to a 'judge'.
- In rule 12.38 (action following application for a block transfer order)— (a) in paragraph (1), for 'The registrar or District Judge', in the first place where it occurs, substitute 'A judge' and in the second 'the judge'; (b) in paragraph (2), in the opening words for 'the registrar or District Judge' substitute 'a judge'; (c) in paragraph (2)(d), for 'the registrar or District Judge or a judge of the Chancery Division.' substitute 'a judge.'
This amendment standardizes the titles of judicial officers who can issue orders after a block transfer application.
It removes references to specific judicial tiers in favor of the general term 'judge'.
- In rule 12.40(3) (office copies of documents), for 'registrar or District Judge' substitute 'judge'.
This section amends who has the authority to permit the inspection or copying of documents in the court file. These permissions are now granted by a 'judge'.
- In rule 13.2(2) (persons entitled to act on official receiver's behalf), for 'the registrar or District Judge.' substitute 'a judge.'
This section updates who can authorize individuals to represent the official receiver in court proceedings.
Authority is now granted by a 'judge'.
- In rule 14.1(6), for '(4)' substitute '(5)'.
This section makes a technical cross-referencing correction within the rule regarding the valuation of claims in insolvency.
It updates a paragraph reference to ensure the rule refers to the correct subsection.
- In rule 18.3(1), omit sub-paragraph (b).
This section removes a specific sub-provision from the rule governing how an office-holder's remuneration is fixed.
It simplifies the criteria or conditions under which fees are determined.
- In rule 18.30(2) (remuneration: exceeding the fee estimate), for sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), substitute— '(a) where the court fixed the basis, to the court; (b) where there is a committee (unless the court fixed the basis), to the committee; (c) in other cases where the creditors or a class of creditors fixed the basis, to the creditors or that class of creditors;'
This section clarifies the hierarchy of approval required when an insolvency practitioner expects their fees to exceed their initial estimate.
Approval must be sought from the same body—the court, a creditors' committee, or the creditors generally—that originally set the fee basis.
Related
The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Hampstead) Regulations 2026
Established a temporary restricted flying zone below 2,500 feet in the Hampstead area on the evening of 5 November 2026.
Read MoreThe Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026
Mandated truth declarations and identity verification for persons registering births and deaths in England and Wales.
Read MoreThe Strategic Planning Authorities (Spatial Development Strategy) Regulations 2026
Established procedural requirements for English authorities to create, consult upon, and monitor regional spatial development strategies.
Read MoreThe Strategic Planning (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026
Updated regional planning frameworks by revoking the Yorkshire and Humber strategy and standardizing spatial development powers across major English combined authorities.
Read More