On 25 March 2026, Janet Bignall KC sitting as a Deputy Judge in the High Court handed down judgment in the matter of Contract Natural Gas (Marketing) Limited v the Joint Liquidators of Contract Natural Gas Limited [2026] EWHC 707 (Ch), which concerned appeals under r14.8 Insolvency Rules 2016 by Marketing against the rejection of its proofs of debt for £6,444,581.00. Matthew Weaver KC and Andrew Brown acted on behalf of Joshua Dwyer and Will Wright of Interpath as joint liquidators of CNG, and were instructed by Fraser Ritson, Aziz Abdul, and Brian Ritson of Addleshaw Goddard. The judge ultimately rejected Marketing’s appeals save for a concession of £16,563.83 by the Joint Liquidators.

CNG was a large gas supplier, which entered administration in 2021 before moving to CVL. Marketing supplied agency services to CNG by sourcing new clients under a 2004 contract that provided for commission in relation to increased income. Marketing submitted a proof of debt for unpaid commission totalling £6,444,581.00 said to arise from an unlawful derogation of the contract from the Commercial Agents Regulations 1993, improper deductions of expenses by CNG, and an alleged oral variation of the 2004 Agreement to increase commission.

Matthew and Andrew successfully submitted that under a proper construction of the agreement it was not a derogation from the 1993 Regulations, that CNG was entitled to deduct various expenses from any commission, that a non-oral modification clause (‘NOM Clause’) in the Agreement was fatal to any oral variation and that Marketing could not rely on estoppel against the Joint Liquidators’ reliance on the NOM Clause. Marketing had failed to adduce any financial data to prove their case, and had failed to pay for the necessary licenses to access the raw financial information held by the Liquidators or seek an order under r14.5 that the Liquidators pay the cost of accessing the information.

The judgment provides a useful recitation of the principles behind an appeal against a rejection of a proof of debt under r14.8, and sets important precedent on two important matters:

(1) Liquidators will not be bound by estoppels raised against them in the performance of their statutory duties, even where the estoppel might otherwise bind the company. As a practical result, where an estoppel against a NOM Clause might bind a company, once an office-holder is appointed the estoppel cannot prevent them from considering the underlying debt despite the estoppel.

(2) The appellant party under r14.8 continues to bear the financial responsibility for proving their debt as set out in r14.5, including paying for access to any information held by office-holders that requires licenses or specialist recovery. A party who is unable to pay those sums must apply under r14.5 for an order reversing the cost burden to the office-holders, and failure to do so cannot give raise an adverse inference against the office-holder at trial.

Find the full judgement here.