Section 234: Welcome clarification handed down in Maher v Investalet [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch)

The High Court has handed down an important decision on the scope of section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“section 284”), specially addressing whether administrators may use the provision to obtain vacant possession from occupiers who are, in effect, trespassers. 

The ruling in Maher & Anor v Investalet Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch) provides welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners dealing with obstructive tenants or unauthorised occupiers during administrations and liquidations.

Background

The joint administrators of Pocket Renting Limited applied under section 234 seeking delivery up and vacant possession of five residential properties owned by the company. The properties had been let to Investalet Ltd (“Investalet”) under tenancy agreements predating the administration and were then further sub‑let without consent. Rent had fallen into arrears, the administrators terminated the tenancies, and Investalet failed to give up possession. 

Although Investalet opposed the application, none of the occupiers took part in the proceedings or resisted the order.

The Key Issue

The central question was whether section 234, a summary mechanism allowing office‑holders to recover property to which the company appears entitled, can be used to obtain vacant possession from trespassers.

Relying heavily on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Carvill‑Biggs v Reading [2025] EWCA Civ 619, the Court reaffirmed that section 234:

• Does not create any new proprietary rights; and
• Cannot give administrators better rights than the company itself held. 

Accordingly, the Court had to consider whether a trespasser’s possessory interest amounted to “property” capable of being “delivered up” under section 234.

The Decision

ICC Judge Greenwood confirmed that section 234 is not a shortcut to vacant possession. The provision is designed to assist with the recovery of property the company already has a right to control, not to resolve disputes as to entitlement or to displace third‑party possessory rights. The Court emphasised that if the company could not itself summarily remove a trespasser, then administrators cannot use section 234 to achieve indirectly what the company could not do directly. 

Instead, possession proceedings should be pursued under Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules which contain the necessary provisions for seeking possession orders against trespassers. 

The administrators’ application therefore could not rely on section 234 as a standalone remedy against occupiers characterised as trespassers.

Practical Implications for Insolvency Practitioners

• Section 234 remains a valuable but limited tool, appropriate for compelling delivery up of property clearly belonging to the company. It is not for resolving contested possession issues.
• Where occupiers’ rights are unclear, or where the administrators allege trespass, a conventional possession claim will usually be required, i.e. the use of Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
• The decision aligns with the Court of Appeal’s restrictive approach in Carvill‑Biggs, reinforcing that administrators must use orthodox property litigation routes where title or possessory rights are disputed.

Conclusion

Maher v Investalet is a significant reminder that section 234 cannot be used as a procedural shortcut when seeking to recover physical control of company property, particularly from occupiers who may claim, rightly or wrongly, a possessory interest. Administrators and insolvency practitioners should assess carefully whether section 234 applies or whether a possession claim is required.