Chess pieces falling over in motion on a chess board.

RESTRUCTURING AND INSOLVENCY

Liquidators and personal liability: Liquidators cannot personally cap liability

Pagden v Fry [2025] EWHC 2316 (Ch)

The High Court has held that liquidators cannot limit their personal liability by contractual terms agreed with a company or its directors. By contrast, their firms may limit their own separate and/or vicarious liability.  The case arises from MVL but the case is relevant beyond just MVLs.

What the court decided

No contractual cap for liquidators personally. The court concluded that a liquidator’s duties derive from the statutory scheme and statutory trust over the company’s assets. Those duties are not owed purely to the company, and the company cannot limit a liquidator’s liability for breach of them.  The liquidator is a fiduciary administering assets for statutory purposes, and cannot contract out of that framework (a limitation clause in their engagement letter to that effect is ineffective).

Firms can potentially cap their own separate and vicarious liability. Engagement terms are effective, as a matter of construction, to limit the firm’s liability for services within scope, including services during the liquidation (other than the liquidators themselves)

Practical implications for office holders

Do not rely on liability caps for your conduct as liquidator. Even if agreed pre‑appointment with directors (or known to shareholders), a cap will not necessarily protect you once appointed.

Engagement architecture still matters – for the firm. Properly drafted engagement letters can cap the firm’s exposure and, potentially, its vicarious liability for staff assisting, provided the work falls within the contractually defined services and subject to the unfair contract terms act.

Mind the “theory vs reality” gap.  In law the office holder acts personally; in practice, firm staff do the work and invoices issue in the firm’s name.  The court recognised this commercial reality and read the engagement accordingly – but without extending protection to the office holder’s own liability.

Use court directions to manage risk.  The court noted that liquidators can seek directions on difficult questions, and regulatory insurance/bonding exists to address exposure. That remains a primary risk‑mitigation tool.

This decision ties the inability to limit liquidator liability squarely to the statutory trust and fiduciary nature of liquidation, offering a principled explanation for why directors and auditors may benefit from exculpation clauses but liquidators may not. PI insurance, bonds, and directions are critical. Reliance on engagement‑letter limits will not protect the office holder personally.

The Restructuring & Insolvency team at DMH Stallard have extensive experience in advising individuals and insolvency practitioners in relation to personal insolvency, disputes with HMRC, director claims and directors’ disqualification.  Please get in touch or call 03333 231580.

About the authors


about the author img

Frank Bouette

Partner

Restructuring and Insolvency expert with considerable experience handling complex transactions and claims for lenders, investors and office holders.

Stay connected, sign up for updates

Stay connected

Recent articles

Announcements

DMH Stallard Family team shortlisted for two prestigious Resolution Awards

DMH Stallard's Family team has earned national recognition with two nominations at the Resolution Awards 2026

11/08/2026

Insights

Business rates: Box shifting mitigation scheme

Court of Appeal sees case concerning box shifting mitigation scheme promoted by Principled Offsite Logistics Limited.

06/08/2026

Announcements

DMH Stallard named among South East’s most recommended law firms in Legal 500 client research

DMH Stallard has been recognised among the South East's ten most recommended law firms in new independent client research published by Legal 500

04/08/2026

Insights

Proposed Amendments to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers Consultation Paper

Consultation paper published by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers on 9 July 2026, proposes miscellaneous amendments to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers.

31/07/2026

DISCLAIMER:

THIS INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO AMOUNT TO LEGAL ADVICE ON WHICH RELIANCE SHOULD BE PLACED. WE, DMH STALLARD LLP, DISCLAIM ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ARISING FROM ANY RELIANCE PLACED ON THIS INFORMATION. ANY RELIANCE ON THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY AT YOUR RISK. The provision of this information does not create a business or professional services relationship. This information is not exhaustive and does not attempt to address every issue relevant to a particular situation. If you require advice on a specific legal issue, please contact a lawyer listed on our website, dmhstallard.com, or send an email to [email protected].