The Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026 were made on 27 May 2026, laid before Parliament on 28 May 2026 and come into force on 22 June 2026. The statutory instrument applies only in England and Wales and amends the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. According to the explanatory note, the package follows a review of how the 2016 Rules have operated in practice. The overall pattern is procedural rather than structural. The amendments modernise drafting, remove references to filing methods no longer used by the courts and the Insolvency Service, and correct or clarify a small number of rules that affect case administration.
One of the more visible drafting changes is the removal of the obsolete term "registrar" from the rules. The amended definition of "judge" now points to the appropriate judge in line with any relevant Practice Direction, and the definition of "Practice Direction" is widened so that it includes any practice direction on insolvency proceedings. That change is carried through a series of consequential amendments across provisions dealing with court functions, transfer powers, block transfer orders, office copies and action on behalf of the official receiver. For practitioners, the immediate effect is mainly administrative. Precedent documents, internal guidance and references in applications will need to reflect current judicial terminology rather than older court labels.
The instrument also makes a clear break with fax-based communication. Rule 1.45 now states expressly that electronic delivery does not include delivery by fax, and associated references to fax are removed from rules dealing with out-of-hours appointments, delivery of applications and communication with the adjudicator. This matters because the amendment does more than tidy up wording. It confirms that parties should treat email and other accepted electronic channels as the live route for delivery, while fax falls out of the procedural framework. In the out-of-hours administration appointment rules, the evidence trail is also updated so that timing is tied to the appointer's hard copy of the email showing when the notice was sent, rather than to any fax transmission record.
A related practical change appears in rule 1.46. Where the rules require more than one copy of a document to be delivered to or by the court, only one copy is needed if the document is delivered electronically. In routine terms, that removes a duplication requirement that made more sense in a paper-based process. For court users and insolvency teams, the point is straightforward. Filing workflows can be simplified, and electronic bundles do not need to mimic historic multiple-copy requirements. The amendment does not change the underlying obligation to file the document itself, but it reduces avoidable repetition in digital submission.
The rules also make a narrower but important terminology update for cross-border insolvency. In rule 8.24(2)(c), the previous reference to "main, territorial or non-EU proceedings" is replaced with "COMI proceedings, establishment proceedings or proceedings to which the EU Regulation as it has effect in the law of the United Kingdom does not apply". The explanatory note states that this brings rule 8.24 into line with rules 8.3 and 8.19, which had already been amended by the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. On its face, this is a consistency exercise rather than a new legal test. The practical value is that the terminology now matches the post-EU-exit drafting already used elsewhere in the insolvency framework.
The operational change most likely to attract immediate attention is in rule 10.11. The financial limit used for presenting bankruptcy petitions in the London Insolvency District rises from £50,000 to £500,000. The wording of the provision and the explanatory note make clear that this is a rule about the court in which a petition is to be presented, not a general restatement of the substantive grounds for bankruptcy. That distinction is important for advisers. The amendment affects case routing and court allocation within the London Insolvency District, so firms handling creditor petitions will need to check filing assumptions, venue decisions and template advice before 22 June 2026. A tenfold increase in the relevant threshold is likely to matter operationally even though the Government does not present the change as a wider policy shift in bankruptcy law.
Two further amendments deal with completion and remuneration. Rule 10.87 is corrected so that, where a bankruptcy began on a debtor's application to the adjudicator, the trustee's completion notice is delivered to the official receiver. Where the bankruptcy began on a creditor's petition, the trustee files notice with the court. The change closes a drafting gap in how the end of the case is formally recorded. Rule 18.30 is also recast to clarify who must approve a request to exceed the office-holder's fee estimate. Where the court fixed the basis, the application goes to the court. Where there is a committee and the court did not fix the basis, the committee is the decision-maker. In other cases, approval sits with the creditors or the class of creditors that fixed the basis. For office-holders and creditor bodies, that should reduce uncertainty over the correct approval route.
The explanatory note says no full impact assessment has been produced because no, or no significant, effect is expected for the private, voluntary or public sectors. That is consistent with the character of the instrument. Most of the changes are procedural housekeeping, but they still require operational attention because they touch filing practice, court allocation and remuneration approvals. The Rules were made by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the committee established for the purposes of section 413 of the Insolvency Act 1986, with the required concurrence for court procedure and from the Secretary of State. For insolvency practitioners, legal teams and court users, the immediate task is practical rather than strategic: update precedents, remove fax references, review London petition routing, and ensure post-22 June cases follow the amended approval and notification routes set out in S.I. 2026/561.