LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 impose powerful duties on company directors, officers, employees, and even third parties to co-operate with insolvency office-holders such as liquidators and administrators. Failure to assist properly during liquidation, administration, or bankruptcy can result in personal sanctions, court orders, fines, and even director disqualification.
We are the leading firm representing Directors and Companies facing HMRC Security Notices and we regularly succeed on behalf of clients. Here, our counsel successfully fought HMRC Security Notices that sought to impose over £215,000 in personal liability for VAT and PAYE debts. The case is a landmark victory against HMRC Notices of Requirement to give Security.
Personal Liability Notices (PLNs) are a powerful HMRC enforcement mechanism that can make company directors and officers personally liable for unpaid corporate tax debts, including PAYE, National Insurance Contributions, VAT, and CIS. In 2026, PLNs are increasingly used in insolvency and enforcement scenarios, placing directors’ personal assets and professional futures at direct risk.
An Account Freezing Order is one of the most disruptive financial enforcement tools available to UK authorities, allowing HMRC, the police and the National Crime Agency to freeze money held in a UK bank or building society account at a very early stage of an investigation. In many cases, the account holder has not been charged with any criminal offence, and may not even be aware that they are under investigation until the account is suddenly inaccessible.
A HMRC Time to Pay (TTP) arrangement lets businesses spread unpaid tax over manageable monthly instalments. In 2026, with HMRC enforcement increasing, well-prepared TTP proposals backed by financial evidence help avoid winding-up petitions, protect directors, and keep businesses trading.
Under the old Martland rules missing a tax tribunal appeal deadline meant case closure as time limits were treated as virtually absolute. The Upper Tribunal’s 2025 decision in Medpro v HMRC restores judicial discretion and elevates case merits. Taxpayers with credible explanations now have a realistic path to rescuing late appeals. Understanding the shift and presenting your circumstances effectively to a tribunal, could mean the difference between recovering a valid claim and losing it permanently.
This detailed guide explains the impact of compulsory liquidation. Early engagement with specialist insolvency and tax counsel is the most critical factor in minimising director exposure and defending or managing the process effectively. Our specialist solicitors and barristers are available to assist on a discounted fixed fee arrangement.
The Tribunal in Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC confirmed that UK intermediaries can recover VAT on services provided to overseas insurers. This decision challenges HMRC’s interpretation of VAT law and sets a strong precedent for cross-border transactions.
We successfully annulled a bankruptcy order against our client after HMRC failed to properly serve notice of a key hearing. Mr. Gaster proved this procedural error denied him the chance to present evidence of his ability to pay. The court’s judgment emphasized due process under Rule 10.23 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, exposing flaws in HMRC’s conduct and evidence on the adjournment notice.
In Purkiss v Kennedy, the High Court rejected a liquidator’s attempt to recover unpaid PAYE and NICs from Ethos Solutions Ltd’s failed tax avoidance scheme. The court found no fraudulent intent to evade HMRC under Insolvency Act 1986, Section 423. This case highlights HMRC’s challenges in tax recovery via insolvency law and the need to prove intent.