Transparency data

Insolvency practitioner sanctions: David Nigel Whitehead 1 September 2016

On 1 September 2016, a Disciplinary Consent Order was made against David Nigel Whitehead, of Norfolk

This publication was withdrawn on

No longer current.

Documents

Disciplinary Consent Order: David Nigel Whitehead

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format.

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email publications@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Details

Mr Whitehead failed to comply with Rule 2.33(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 read with Paragraph 49 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in his capacity as joint administrator of Jarrett Tea Limited as he filed the administrators’ proposals with the Registrar of Companies 53 months late.

Mr Whitehead failed to comply with Rule 2.47(4)(b) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 in his capacity as joint administrator of Jarrett Tea Limited as he did not file the first six month progress report with the Registrar of Companies.

Mr Whitehead failed to comply with Rule 2.117 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 in his capacity as joint administrator of Jarrett Tea Limited as he incorrectly filed the final progress report with the Registrar of Companies that did not cover the correct period of the administration, reporting to 16 March 2011 when the administration ended on 15 April 2011.

Mr Whitehead failed to comply with Rule 4.49C(7) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 in his capacity as joint liquidator of Jarrett Tea Limited as he filed three annual progress reports late with the Registrar of Companies.

Having carefully considered the further representations provided to the committee by Mr Whitehead, the committee remained of the view that this was a serious complaint, which included multiple failures and accordingly decided that the consent order previously offered should be offered in the same terms.

Following the finding of a prima facie case, on 1 September 2016, with the agreement of Mr David Nigel Whitehead, the Investigation Committee ordered that he be severely reprimanded, fined £7,500 and pay costs.

Published 26 September 2016