Could you give us a 'sec and explain how Administrators are usually limited in incurring debts, and liability for them? And the reasons (if given) why the Court has given an exception in this case?
Sure, though I'll try to keep off the word "huge", I didn't realise I used it twice when describing this issue!
There aren't necessarily limitations placed on administrators incurring any debt during the administration, it's simply that they are to be mindful of any debt they incur after a 5 day period (one business week) as they will be personally liable for it if it is not appropriately discharged or paid for by the end of administration process (like through a Deed of Company Agreement).
The threat of personal liability is to protect the interests of both secured and unsecured creditors, and to essentially keep administrators to task - that being either a successful restructure, a sale of a going concern, or liquidation. This is particularly prudent as the voluntary administration process can "free" an entity from otherwise prohibitive existing contracts (e.g. leases), that would otherwise continue to accrue debt, so why contract into new debt that would worsen the creditors' position?
Going off the above example of leases, VA's administrators would have looked quite early on at VA's aircraft leases and started assessing if they were still required in the current operation of the business, or if the leases should be re-negotiated or exited.
However, the Court (and
only the Court), can limit an administrator's personal liability if there are extenuating circumstances (for example, the sheer size of the entity or group of corporations, or that there's an ongoing pandemic). At the end of the day, the Court is going to be looking at whether such an exemption is in the interests of the creditors and if it would lead to; for example, an entity continuing trading so as to fulfil certain acts that would allow a better payment for creditors.
This article goes through the above pretty well in relation to another administration matter where a personal liability exemption was provided for a loan agreement:
A prudent approach to reducing the risk of personal liability | Mills Oakley
I can't say for certain why the Court has provided it in this case, but it would be inline with the principles addressed above; and the pandemic is the best extenuating circumstances I've seen to date.