England and Wales Insolvency Rules Change on 22 June

If you do not work in insolvency law, this document can look like a wall of rule numbers and cross-references. The easier way to read it is this: England and Wales are updating the detailed rules that sit underneath insolvency law, mainly to remove old procedures, tidy court wording and correct a handful of technical points. According to legislation.gov.uk, these are the Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026. They were made on 27 May 2026, laid before Parliament on 28 May 2026 and come into force on 22 June 2026. They apply only to England and Wales.

**What this is:** a statutory instrument is a way for ministers to change detailed legal rules without passing a brand new Act of Parliament. In this case, the Lord Chancellor made the Rules using powers in the Insolvency Act 1986, after the required consultation, with the agreement of the Chancellor of the High Court on court procedure and the Secretary of State. That helps us place the story properly. This is not a wholesale rewrite of insolvency law. It is a review-and-repair exercise. The note published with the Rules says the changes follow a review of how the 2016 Rules have worked since they were introduced, which is why so much of the amendment deals with wording, filing practice and procedural clarity.

One of the clearest updates is the formal removal of fax from the rules. Several provisions delete references to fax numbers, fax transmission reports and faxed notices because, as the explanatory note says, delivery by fax to the courts and the Insolvency Service is no longer available. Rule 1.45 now says plainly that electronic delivery does not include delivery by fax. Rule 1.46 also makes life simpler by saying that when a document is delivered electronically, only one copy needs to be sent, even where the rules would otherwise ask for more than one. **What this means:** if you are filing electronically, the law now matches how modern filing actually works, instead of pretending the fax machine is still part of everyday court procedure.

Another thread running through the amendment is the language used for court decision-makers. The definition of 'judge' is updated so that it follows any relevant Practice Direction, including practice directions on insolvency proceedings, and the obsolete term 'registrar' is removed. Later rules then make matching changes so that references to 'registrar or District Judge' become simply 'judge'. This may sound small, but legal procedure depends on naming the right person. If you are trying to work out who can transfer proceedings, deal with a block transfer order or act in relation to official receiver functions, clearer wording reduces the chance of misreading the rulebook. In other words, this is less about changing power and more about making the rules say, more neatly, who already has it.

The same modernising approach appears in the rules on appointing administrators outside court business hours. Old references to telephone numbers, faxing and fax reports are stripped out. In one key provision, the timing evidence now turns on the date and time shown on the appointer's hard copy of the email. **Think of it this way:** the rules are moving from paper-era proof to email-era proof. That matters because out-of-hours appointments can be time-sensitive, and when timing matters, the rules need to be very clear about what counts as evidence that a notice was sent.

The most eye-catching numerical change sits in rule 10.11. The financial limit for presenting bankruptcy petitions in the London Insolvency District rises from £50,000 to £500,000. **What this means:** this is not a blanket increase across every part of bankruptcy law. The amendment changes the threshold used for presenting petitions in that district. Still, the jump is large enough to stand out immediately. If you are following insolvency practice in London, this is one of the few amendments that changes a figure people will already know.

Some of the other amendments are there to make the rules internally consistent. Rule 8.24 updates the wording on cross-border proceedings so that it refers to COMI proceedings, establishment proceedings and proceedings to which the EU Regulation, as it has effect in UK law, does not apply. The note says this brings the rule into line with wording already used elsewhere after earlier EU Exit changes. Rule 10.87 corrects another practical point. Where a bankruptcy began with a debtor's application to an adjudicator, the trustee's notice on completion is to be given to the official receiver. There are also smaller tidy-ups, including omitted paragraphs and a corrected cross-reference in rule 14.1. These are the kinds of edits that can look dull on the page but save confusion when someone has to use the rules in real cases.

There is also a helpful clarification on remuneration. Rule 18.30 now makes clearer who must approve a request to exceed an office-holder's fee estimate. If the court fixed the basis, the request goes to the court. If there is a creditors' committee and the court did not fix the basis, it goes to the committee. In other cases, it goes to the creditors, or class of creditors, that fixed the estimate. Put together, these amendments are best read as a legal tidy-up with a few targeted corrections and one especially notable threshold rise for London bankruptcy petitions. The note accompanying the Rules says no full impact assessment was produced because no significant effect on the private, voluntary or public sector is expected. We should read that carefully. It does not mean the Rules do nothing. It means ministers see them as mostly procedural. For anyone who files documents, reads insolvency rules or needs to know who approves what, procedural changes can still prevent mistakes and make the system easier to use.