Braganza Doesnt Bite: High Court Strikes Out Challenge To Validity Of Appointment Of Administrators Where Enforcement Was For The Purpose Of An Attempted Takeover

Summary

The English High Court in Glint Pay Ltd & Ors v Baker & Anor¹ struck out a claim challenging the validity of the appointment of administrators who were appointed following a debt acquisition for the purpose of an attempted takeover of the business and subsequent enforcement action.

The judgment addresses key issues including the scope and transfer of security rights, the occurrence of default events, the proper purpose of enforcement, and the application of estoppel and implied good faith terms. The court found no realistic prospect of success on any pleaded ground, emphasising the limited scope for such challenges where security enforcement is properly conducted.

An application for leave to appeal has been heard and refused, solidifying the decision.

Implications

This decision provides clarity and reassurance to lenders, debt acquirers, and officeholders regarding the enforceability of security rights and the limited scope for challenges based on alleged improper purpose or implied duties of good faith. Arguments seeking to limit enforcement powers by reference to implied "Braganza" duties are unlikely to succeed. Further, estoppel may preclude challenges to the validity of the appointment of administrators where companies have previously acknowledged those appointments when dealing with remuneration.

Background

A company seeking to acquire another purchased its secured debt from a third-party lender and, following non-compliance with information covenants, accelerated the loan and appointed administrators. The target company refinanced and exited administration, after which it brought proceedings challenging the validity of the administrators' appointment. The administrators applied to strike out the claim.

Key Issues and Findings

• Assignment and scope of security rights: The court rejected the argument that only a bare security interest had been assigned, holding that the Deed of Assignment transferred the full bundle of information and security rights. Any contrary interpretation was commercially and legally unsustainable.
• Information obligations and event of default: The request for information was validly made on behalf of the assignee chargee. Attempts to confine information rights to fixed assets were unsuccessful; the relevant clause was held to extend to the company's assets and liabilities generally, particularly in the context of a floating charge. The failure to provide that information constituted a breach and an event of default, triggering the right to accelerate and appoint administrators.
• Proper purpose and bad faith: The court reaffirmed that a chargee must act for a proper purpose, but enforcement is not invalidated merely because other motives also exist; i.e. the chargee's attempted takeover of the business. Seeking the appointment of an independent officeholder to take control of assets was a proper purpose, and collateral motives did not vitiate enforcement.
• Implied "Braganza" duty: The court declined to imply a Braganza-type duty constraining the exercise of chargee rights to request information or enforce security, confirming there was no reasonableness or rationality overlay on these contractual discretions. A chargee must be entitled to act in accordance with its own interests as it perceives them to be.
• Estoppel: Having acknowledged the administrators' appointment in separate proceedings regarding the administrators' remuneration, the claimant was estopped from later challenging the validity of the appointment.

Footnote

1 [2025] EWHC 2166 (Ch)

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

© Copyright 2026. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.