Unfair prejudice meaning

This Checklist This Checklist highlights the different avenues for bringing a joint venture (JV) to a close or facilitating an exit, and the factors to weigh depending on the pathway chosen. For guidance on addressing a JV dispute, see Practice Note: Joint venture disputes—how to respond. For further detailed guidance on terminating joint ventures where a specially created or nominated joint venture company (JVC) is involved, see the following Practice Notes: Termination—corporate joint ventures Tax implications of operating and terminating a joint venture company Corporate joint venture dispute—dealing with deadlock: initial considerations Majority-minority joint venture dispute—a practical illustration Entering a JV relationship usually calls for significant planning and effort from the JV parties, who opt to work together for mutual advantage (often by sharing cost, resources and expertise). You will need to assess the full ramifications of ending or exiting the JV, including whether there are sound reasons to be prepared to see that investment lost if the JV is...

Farnsworth v Chave [2025] EWHC 2677 (Ch) What was the background? This judgment addresses a threshold question arising in unfair prejudice litigation between Adam Farnsworth and Kevin Chave, joint equal shareholders and directors of Essex and East London Van Services Ltd (the Company), a quasi-partnership company. Aaron Chave (Aaron), Mr Chave’s son, worked for the Company as a fitter from September 2014, progressing to senior fitter/supervisor, before resigning on 2 May 2023. After Aaron left, Mr Chave transferred his shareholding in the previously dormant Kent Van Solutions Ltd (Kent) to Aaron and other family members, with Aaron becoming a director of Kent and commencing trading in competition with the Company. By an order of 12 February 2025, the court directed a preliminary issue, determined in this judgment, namely whether Aaron and Kent should remain respondents to Mr Farnsworth’s cross-petition, Aaron and Kent seeking to be released. Mr Farnsworth alleged that Mr Chave had conspired with Aaron to damage the Company by reviving Kent, and that Aaron had breached...

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Cross-border disputes New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Civil Procedure Rule Committee Minutes Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee meeting of 9 May 2025: The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has released the minutes from its 9 May 2025 meeting. For more detail, the minutes can be accessed here. Consultations Regulation of the debt enforcement sector consultation: The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has opened a consultation on setting up an independent statutory regulator for the debt enforcement sector in England and Wales. The regulator would supervise enforcement agents, High Court Enforcement Officers and their firms operating the Taking Control of Goods procedure, to protect vulnerable people, improve accountability and raise professional standards. The proposals would enable the regulator to accredit firms and individuals, collect and share data, monitor...

In this issue: Audit Directors and company secretaries Nature of membership Share purchase agreement Corporate governance Equity capital markets EU developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Audit FRC introduces revised approach to audit supervision The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has set out an updated model for supervising audits, aimed at supporting a high quality, resilient and trusted UK audit market and profession, and has also issued a policy statement explaining how the new regime will function. This represents a development of the FRC’s supervisory framework. The FRC states the approach is designed to deliver a more proportionate, effective and integrated system of oversight, reflecting shifts in the audit market and the wider ecosystem. See: LNB News 25/03/2026 51. Directors and company secretaries Gardner Aerospace Holdings Ltd v Upton [2026] EWHC 555 (Ch) The High Court found that...

These training materials These resources comprise model PowerPoint slides with accompanying speaker notes, setting out the principal steps to take and the considerations to bear in mind for minority shareholders looking to safeguard their rights. They are designed to support legal advisers, directors and company secretaries in creating one or more training sessions on these matters. In particular, the materials concentrate on: unfair prejudice claims derivative claims just and equitable winding...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

This Practice Note sets out, in broad terms, the route for petitioning the court to obtain a winding-up order on the just and equitable ground. Depending on the court handling the matter, you may need to observe additional requirements—see the section below: Court specific guidance. For definitions and key expressions used in relation to a just and equitable winding-up petition, see Practice Note: Just and equitable winding-up—what it is and when to use it—Key terms encountered when applying for a winding-up on the just and equitable ground. Preliminary considerations The focus here is chiefly on procedure where a just and equitable winding-up petition is issued as a stand-alone claim. As this is comparatively uncommon, variations in approach between, and indeed within, courts may arise, for example when listing a petition for initial directions. A request to wind up a company on the just and equitable ground is sometimes pursued as an alternative claim within a section 994 petition (Alternative Claim), as discussed in Practice Note: Just and equitable...

This llp Agreement is dated [ insert date and month ] 20[ insert year ] Parties The persons identified in Part A of Schedule 1 ( Initial Members ); and [ insert name ] LLP, a limited liability partnership (registration number OC [ insert number ]), whose registered office is at [ insert address ] ( LLP ). background [ The LLP was formed under the Act on [ insert date ]. OR The Initial Members plan to incorporate the LLP under the Act on, or immediately following, the date of this agreement. ] The Initial Members enter into this agreement to define the LLP’s internal arrangements and to set out their respective rights, obligations and duties in relation to the LLP...

This LLP Agreement is dated [ insert date and month ] 20[ insert year ] Parties The persons named in Schedule 1 (Initial Members); and [ insert name ] LLP, a limited liability partnership (registration number OC [ insert number ]) whose registered office is at [ insert address ] (LLP). background The LLP was incorporated on [ insert date ]. The Initial Members are entering into this agreement to define the LLP’s internal arrangements and their rights, obligations and duties in respect of the LLP...