Latest court ruling on section 235 and 236 requests
Being served with a request for documents under sections 235 or 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 can feel extensive and intrusive. Office-holders are entitled to investigate the affairs of an insolvent company, and the court has broad powers to order disclosure.
However, those powers are not unlimited.
A recent High Court decision in Webb & Hussain v Eversholt Rail Ltd [2026] EWHC 101 (Ch) confirms that liquidators must explain precisely why the documents they seek are reasonably required. Requests framed on an “everything forever” basis are vulnerable to challenge.
For directors and connected companies, the judgment provides useful clarification about the limits of section 236.
What are sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act?
Sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 allow office-holders to require the production of information and documents relating to the company’s affairs.
- Section 235 imposes a duty to cooperate.
- Section 236 allows the court to order persons connected with the company, or who have relevant information, to attend court, be examined, and deliver up documents.
These provisions are frequently used where records are incomplete, where group structures are involved, or where third parties hold material relevant to potential claims.
Importantly, however, the court must be satisfied that the material sought is reasonably required.
What did the High Court decide in Webb & Hussain?
In Webb & Hussain, joint liquidators sought an order requiring a connected company and a firm of solicitors to provide “all documents” relating to the business and affairs of the insolvent company, including but not limited to specified categories.
The first instance judge refused the application. On appeal, the High Court upheld that refusal.
The liquidators argued that they were entitled to documents necessary to reconstitute the company’s knowledge. The High Court rejected the proposition that this purpose, by itself, justified an unrestricted request.
The court confirmed that:
- An office-holder must demonstrate a requirement for the documents sought; and
- That the requirement must be reasonable in the circumstances.
Reconstituting corporate knowledge may explain the underlying purpose of section 236, but it does not remove the need to justify each category of material.
What does this mean if you receive a wide document request?
If you are served with a section 236 application seeking very broad disclosure, the decision is a reminder that the court will scrutinise whether the request is properly focused.
A request for “all documents” over an unlimited period may be challenged where it is not supported by evidence explaining why such breadth is reasonably required.
That does not mean applications will fail simply because they are wide. In some cases, particularly at an early stage of investigation, broader categories may be justified. The key question is whether the office-holder has articulated a reasonable evidential basis for the scope of the request.
For respondents, careful analysis of the draft order is essential. The structure of the categories, the time period covered, and the explanation provided in the supporting evidence are all relevant.
Can narrower categories be ordered instead?
The High Court noted that narrower, more focused categories of documents could in principle have been sought as alternatives to the wider request.
- In this case, they were not clearly framed as alternatives.
- As a result, the court was not required to reconstruct the application into a narrower form.
This aspect of the judgment has practical significance. Where an office-holder seeks both wide-ranging and specific categories in the same composite order, the court may treat the request as a single expansive application rather than a tiered set of alternatives.
For respondents, that distinction can be important when considering whether to resist or negotiate the scope of relief.
What about group companies and service agreements?
The case arose in a group structure where a sister company provided administrative and asset management services under a services agreement. The effect was that many documents relevant to the insolvent company were held by another entity.
The High Court observed that contractual routes, including proceedings for specific performance under the services agreement, may have been available.
This reinforces a broader point. Section 236 is not the only mechanism available to obtain documents. Where contractual or other legal obligations exist, those routes may be relevant to whether a wide-ranging section 236 order is proportionate.
How should you respond if you are served with a section 236 application?
If you receive a section 236 application:
- Do not assume that the scope of the draft order is automatically justified.
- Review carefully whether each category of documents is supported by evidence of reasonable requirement.
- Consider whether narrower disclosure would meet the legitimate needs of the investigation.
- Assess whether there are parallel contractual or procedural issues that may affect the analysis.
Applications under section 236 are discretionary. The court balances the legitimate investigative needs of the office-holder against proportionality and fairness to the respondent.
In contested cases, outcomes frequently turn on drafting, evidential framing and procedural strategy rather than broad statements of principle. Sections 235 and 236 remain powerful tools for insolvency office-holders in England and Wales. This decision does not weaken those powers. It does, however, confirm that they are not unlimited. Where document requests appear unfocused or disproportionate, there may be grounds to require the applicant to justify precisely what is sought and why.
