Clarity around administrator remuneration and cost recovery is essential.
The case of Frost v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd offers timely guidance on how and when administrators can apply for additional remuneration and how such applications are assessed. The administrators in this case initially estimated their fees at £225,817, which later rose to £400,315.50 following an extended trading period. Creditors approved the remuneration on a time-cost basis, with fees of £235,000 plus VAT being approved. The restructuring plan made provision for payment of unpaid fees, with any further fees being subject to an adjudication process and in the absence of agreement, provided for an application to Court for approval of remuneration.
The administrators applied to court to increase their remuneration, after the Administration had ended, under r18.24 and r18.28 Insolvency Rules. They argued that the court retained jurisdiction to vary the “amount” of fees, even where creditors had already agreed fees on a time cost basis.
The Court (first instance and Court of Appeal) rejected the Administrators’ application on the basis that it did not fall within the scope of rule 18.24, or 18.28.
Ultimately, Frost confirms that applications for increased remuneration remain possible under the Insolvency Rules 2016 – but only within the confines of the legal and procedural framework. For insolvency practitioners, the case provides a valuable roadmap for navigating cost recovery in complex administration and restructuring scenarios. The key takeaway is that time cost limits approved by creditors will apply unless the creditors or Court have agreed remuneration exceeding the fee estimate and for applications to the Court, where fees exceed the fee estimate, rule 18.30 is the appropriate provision.
What Happened in Frost v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd?
The administration of The Good Box Co Labs Ltd began on 28 June 2022, with Mr Jeremy Frost and Mr Stephen Wadsted of the Frost Group appointed as joint administrators. The application was made by NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd (NGI), a significant shareholder, creditor, and supplier to the company. During the administration, NGI provided secured funding under a debenture.
The administrators issued their proposals to creditors on 18 August 2022. These were approved at a virtual creditors’ meeting on 5 September 2022, following which a creditors’ committee was formed to consider the administrators proposals as regards to fees.
Crucially, this case marked use of a Part 26A restructuring plan to exit administration which was sanctioned by the court on 16 January 2023, and administration formally ended on 26 January 2023.
Despite raising objections regarding the plan, the joint administrators were directed by the court to consent to the plan on the company’s behalf. A key issue arose around the administrators’ fees. Originally estimated at £225,817, the figure rose to £400,315.50 due to a longer-than-expected trading period. Creditors had approved the remuneration on a time-cost basis, and authorised fees on account of £235,000 plus VAT. However, the administrators sought to increase their remuneration further.
When the increased fees were claimed in the restructuring plan, the plan administrators rejected the claim and explained, in the rejection letter, that the administrators should apply to Court under rule 18.24. The administrators duly applied to court under rules 18.24 and 18.28. That application was dismissed by HHJ Klein on 5 March 2024, and the first instance decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 12 March 2025. The courts held that the application fell outside the ambit of rules 18.24 and 18.28 the Insolvency Rules 2016 and as such, the Court rejected the Administrators’ application. An application for approval of time costs exceeding the fee estimate should have been made under rule 18.30 with appropriate notice being given to creditors.
Can Former Administrators Still Apply for Additional Remuneration?
One of the key takeaways from Frost v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd is the confirmation that former administrators retain standing to seek additional remuneration after leaving office. This was a central point in the administrators’ application under Rule 18.28 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. Although the application was ultimately dismissed on other grounds, the court was clear: former administrators are not barred from making such applications solely because they are no longer in post.
The court also noted that remuneration and expenses of former administrators can be charged on, and paid out of, the property that was in their custody or control immediately prior to cessation.
In practice, any such application must be made within 28 days of ceasing to hold office (where an application is made under the scope of rule 18.32 of IR 2016).
