The recent Court of Appeal case of Webb & Anor v Eversholt Rail Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 101 (Ch) provides a stark reminder to officeholders to ensure they have demonstrated a sufficiently reasonable requirement when compelling anyone under section 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to provide information or documents relevant to the insolvency.

In the judgment, Sir Anthony Mann emphasised the requirement for officeholders to evidence the need for the information sought and that a desire to reconstitute the entirety of the company’s knowledge must be applied to the facts. He said, “they must do more than point to the fact that someone has extensive knowledge that they want – they must establish a reasonable requirement for what they seek”.

If you need advice on handling requests for information during an insolvency process, our team at HF is ready to assist. Get in touch with Richard.Palmer@h-f.co.uk or Ashlea.Brittain@h-f.co.uk.

Background

Eversholt Rail (365) Ltd (“365”) and Eversholt Rail Ltd (“ERL”) were sister companies within the Eversholt UK Rails Group. ERL acted as the group’s asset-management and administrative arm, providing services to other group entities, including 365. 365 were entirely dependent on ERL for its core services and as a result, all documents relating to 365’s business were held by ERL in accordance with a Service Level Agreement agreed between the two entities.

On 29 August 2019, 365 entered CVL. However, as a consequence of the arrangement between 365 and ERL, when the Liquidators took office, they were unable to consider 365’s business and financial affairs as all relevant documentation were held by ERL. Naturally, the Liquidators asked 365, ERL and Norton Rose Fulbright Solicitors (“NRF”) (who had provided legal advice to ERL, which included advice relating to 365) for documents. Whilst some documents were provided by ERL to 365, the Liquidators were ultimately not satisfied and pursued an application against ERL and NRF pursuant to sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Liquidators sought an order for ERL and NRF to deliver up “copies of all documents…in its possession custody or control relating to the business, dealings, affairs or property” of 365. In addition, they sought an order for delivery of any advice given by NRF. In short, using the judgment’s words, the Liquidators required “everything forever” from both ERL and NRF.

ICCJ Burton dismissed the application in the High Court on 27 September 2024 on the basis that the application was too broad without justification and because ERL had been co-operating in the provision of documents ([2024] EWHC 2217 (Ch)). She held that the liquidators “must work within the confines of the circumstances of the company to which they have been appointed”. The Liquidators subsequently appealed the decision on numerous grounds, and the matter was put before Sir Anthony Mann in December 2025.

The Judgment

Sir Anthony Mann ultimately dismissed the appeal and confirmed that ICCJ Burton had applied the correct test.

It was highlighted that Liquidators “have to establish a reasonable requirement for documents or information under both sections…It may be that in some cases the circumstances are such that the liquidators can establish, on the facts, that their need to reconstitute the company’s knowledge justifies a very extensive “everything forever” disclosure because on the facts, it is a reasonable requirement, but they must do more than point to the fact that someone has extensive knowledge that they want – they must establish a reasonable requirement for what they seek”.

Conclusion

The judgment is a reminder that officeholders do not have an unlimited power to request delivery of documents and information under the Insolvency Act 1986. It is imperative that they provide evidence and justification for the disclosure they seek in respect of their lines of enquiries. Sections 235 and 236 do not permit officeholders to embark on a fishing expedition – they must evidence a clear need for the information.

Whilst the liquidators made a big point on appeal about ICCJ Burton’s comment that they “must work within the confines of the circumstances of the company to which they have been appointed”, focus should be maintained on why information is reasonably required, regardless of the entity of whom the request for information is being made.