The administrators of collapsed law firm SSB Law have reportedly brought proceedings seeking approximately £6.5 million in after-the-event insurance premiums connected with cavity wall insulation claims.
According to reports, the administrators allege that the relevant insurance policies were never truly effective. The proceedings are ongoing and those allegations have not yet been determined by the court.
The case provides a useful example of an important aspect of company administration in England and Wales. When administrators take control of an insolvent company, they do not simply investigate its cash, property and outstanding invoices. Potential legal claims belonging to the company can themselves represent valuable assets.
Whether those claims should actually be pursued is a separate question. Administrators must consider the evidence, legal merits, likely recovery, costs and wider benefit to the administration before committing estate resources to litigation.
What is the £6.5 million SSB Law ATE premium claim?
SSB Group Limited, which traded as SSB Law, entered administration in January 2024.
On 21 August 2026, administrators brought a claim seeking approximately £6.5 million in after-the-event insurance premiums linked to cavity wall insulation cases. The report states that the administrators allege that the relevant policies were never truly effective.
At this stage, these remain allegations made in ongoing proceedings. There has been no reported judgment determining that the premiums are recoverable or that the insurer is liable.
That distinction is important.
- An administrator deciding to pursue litigation does not establish that the claim will succeed.
- It means that the office-holder considers there is a potential cause of action which warrants pursuit on behalf of the company.
For insolvency practitioners, the wider point is that litigation can form an important part of the process of identifying and realising value after an appointment.
When can administrators bring legal proceedings for an insolvent company?
Administrators appointed to companies in England and Wales have broad statutory powers to deal with the company’s affairs, business and property.
The Insolvency Act 1986 includes powers to take possession of and collect company property and to bring or defend legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company.
This means that where a company already possesses a viable legal claim when administrators are appointed, the administrators can consider whether that claim should be pursued.
A cause of action may therefore be valuable even though it does not appear as a conventional physical asset on the company’s balance sheet.
For example, an insolvent company might have a contractual claim against a supplier, an insurance claim, an outstanding debt, a professional negligence claim or another right of recovery against a third party.
Administrators may also have access to specific remedies arising under insolvency legislation where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Our administration solicitors for insolvency practitioners regularly assist office-holders with post-appointment investigations and assessments of potential causes of action. FWJ’s existing administration guidance recognises that proportionality and the likely benefit of potential proceedings need to be considered before claims are pursued.
How do administrators decide whether a claim is worth pursuing?
Identifying a possible claim is only the beginning.
Administrators need to make a commercial assessment of whether pursuing it is likely to benefit the administration.
- The legal merits will be central. There needs to be sufficient evidence to establish the relevant cause of action and a realistic prospect of obtaining a worthwhile recovery.
- The administrators will also need to consider the financial position of the proposed defendant. A strong claim may have limited commercial value if the defendant has no realistic means of satisfying a judgment.
- Costs are another important consideration. Litigation can involve solicitors’ fees, counsel’s fees, court fees, expert evidence and potential adverse costs exposure. The amount potentially recoverable therefore needs to be considered against the cost and risk of pursuing it.
- Funding may also affect the decision. Depending on the circumstances, an office-holder may consider litigation funding, after-the-event insurance, a conditional fee arrangement or an assignment of the claim to another party.
There may also be situations where a detailed legal review concludes that proceedings should not be pursued.
FWJ has previously advised an administrator on potential claims against directors where the investigation identified evidential gaps which meant litigation was unlikely to produce sufficient benefit. That illustrates an important point: good insolvency litigation advice is not simply about finding a claim. It is also about identifying when the available evidence or likely return does not justify proceedings.
What types of claims can administrators investigate and pursue?
The answer depends on what happened before the administration and what rights belong to the company.
Some claims are ordinary causes of action which the company could have pursued before entering administration. These might include
- breach of contract,
- unpaid debts,
- insurance disputes,
- professional negligence; or
- claims involving fraud or misappropriated assets.
Other potential recoveries arise specifically because the company has entered a formal insolvency procedure. Depending on the circumstances, transactions carried out before insolvency may be investigated, including potential transactions at an undervalue or preferences.
Claims involving directors can also arise. An office-holder may investigate matters such as misfeasance, breaches of duty, improper payments or dealings with company property.
The legal basis for each type of claim is different. Evidence suggesting that money has left the company does not automatically establish that it is recoverable.
That is why early investigation of the company’s books, contracts, banking information, correspondence and accounting records is often critical.
Where there are potential claims against directors, our guide to liquidator and administrator claims explains some of the principal claims which can arise following company insolvency.
What can a successful administrator claim mean for creditors?
A successful claim can increase the assets available within an administration.
That does not necessarily mean that every creditor will receive payment or that recovered funds will be distributed directly to unsecured creditors.
Money recovered through litigation forms part of the insolvency estate and must be dealt with within the statutory insolvency framework. The eventual outcome will depend on matters including the costs and expenses of the administration, security held by creditors, statutory priorities and the overall level of available assets and liabilities.
Nevertheless, where a company has few conventional assets, a legal claim can sometimes represent a significant potential source of value.
This is why office-holders need to investigate potential causes of action promptly and objectively. The task is not simply to pursue every possible defendant. It is to identify claims capable of producing a commercial benefit for the estate and creditors.
The reported SSB Law proceedings provide a topical example. Whether the £6.5 million claim succeeds remains to be determined. The wider principle, however, is clear: rights of action belonging to an insolvent company can be assets in their own right and administrators may need to consider whether those rights can sensibly be converted into recoveries.
