Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights-28 May 2026 In this issue Key R& I law developments Restructuring Personal insolvency Insolvency litigation R& I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Key R& I law developments Issue 170 of Insolvency Service’s Dear IP published The Insolvency Service has released issue 170 of its Dear IP newsletter. Highlights include revisions to the IP Complaints Gateway guidance, a consultation on proposed changes to Statement of Insolvency Practice ( SIP) 2, and advice on safeguarding employee and consumer creditor data when lodging statements of affairs at Companies House. It confirms the UK Sanctions List is now the sole authoritative source for UK sanctions designations. The issue also sets out direction on using approved spreadsheet templates for submissions to the Insolvency Service, outlines proposals within the...
Ofwat has opened a consultation on provisional guidance for water companies carrying out schemes under the Water Industry ( Specified Infrastructure Projects) ( English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 ( SIPR), SI 2013/1582. This guidance outlines Ofwat’s regulatory and commercial expectations for such schemes and should be considered alongside the statutory guidance, ‘ Criteria for selecting specified infrastructure projects’......
The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have approved the 195th Practice Direction ( PD) Update, expanding the reach of the Damages Claim Portal ( DCP) in CPR PD 51ZB so that specified non-monetary claims-termed ‘ Other Remedy Claims’-can be lodged online alongside a principal damages claim, provided both sides have legal representation, rather than relying on paper filing. It further includes within scope disputes concerning unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, extending the update’s application. This reform shifts matters presently dealt with on paper into a digital workflow to enhance efficiency, aligning connected remedies with the same online route as the main damages claim. The amendments take effect on 27 May 2026. The additional category spans three remedies: injunctions, declarations and...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Property insolvency R& I in Scotland Industry/sector guides for R& I lawyers Corporate Rescue and Insolvency ( April 2026) Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Key R& I law developments Lord Sales on assimilated law On 13 April in Oxford, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Sales, delivered a talk on the idea, standing and constitutional role of assimilated law in the post‑ Brexit settlement. Placing assimilated law within its historical and constitutional frame, he explored possible hurdles for a purposive reading of assimilated measures, and discussed the interpretative weight of case law on assimilated provisions. He also examined how assimilated law may unsettle the sensitive balance between...
Boult v Together Personal Finance Ltd [2026] EWHC 809 ( Ch) What was the background? The respondent lender, Together Personal Finance Ltd, granted a short-term secured loan to the appellant, Ms Boult, with security taken by way of a legal charge over her home. The borrower had expressly agreed that only the house would be charged, and she executed the legal charge on that footing. After execution, and without her knowledge or consent, the lender’s solicitors altered the instrument by adding, in handwriting, a second property owned by her. The amended charge was then registered against both titles at HM Land Registry. The borrower later discovered the inclusion of this additional property and challenged the validity of the charge. Possession proceedings were issued in the County Court, where she relied on the rule in Pigot’s Case (1614) 11 Co Rep 26, asserting that the...
Hinton and another (as joint administrators of Kession Capital Ltd) v KVB Consultants Ltd ( Company Number 08723839) and others [2026] EWHC 785 ( Ch) What was the background? Kession Capital Ltd’s joint administrators (the company being in administration) sought directions from the High Court, before Deputy ICC Judge Curl KC, invoking IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 53, 55 and 63. The step followed creditors’ rejection of proposals put forward under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 49(1). They asked the court to ‘hold the ring’ by keeping the company in administration until a Supreme Court appeal on another issue was determined, with a further meeting of creditors thereafter. Twenty‑six unconnected judgment creditors opposed the application. When administration commenced, the company was insolvent and not trading. Its move into administration came after enforcement action by a substantial judgment creditor, Mr...
Corporate Rescue and Insolvency The newest issue of Corporate Rescue and Insolvency ( April 2026) is now accessible via Lexis +® UK (subscription necessary)......
The High Court ruled on 7 April 2026 that Kession must be wound up and its assets liquidated for the benefit of creditors after concluding that there was no good reason to keep the company in administration Judge Joseph Curl found that the administrators, Lloyd Edward Hinton and Kelly Knight, had put forward a plan to retain the company in administration in order to pay an £800 sum to the firm's director and controlling shareholder, Michael Kessler, for unpaid wages, which he described as 'tenuous from the outset'. He stated that no case had been made, linked to the statutory purposes of administration or the collective interests of the creditors, that could survive rational scrutiny to justify the company remaining in administration......
Importers Service Corporation and another v Aliotta and others [2026] EWHC 533 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment formulated no new legal principles, nor did it depart from established doctrine. In his analysis, the judge collated and synthesised the relevant case law on the interpretation of IA 1986, s 423, identifying, among other points, the following key matters: the 2024 Transfer fell to be treated as a 'transaction' within IA 1986, s 423, even though there were multiple plausible dates, spread across roughly two years, on which the disposals might in fact have occurred; in practical terms, the transaction was a continuing occurrence comprised of a sequence of individual elements when viewed as a whole the Claimants had standing to advance IA 1986, s 423 claims notwithstanding that they were not creditors of the Company; they were properly regarded as...
Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd and others v Ardmore Construction Ltd (in Administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789 ( TCC) What was the background? The claimants ( Crest), comprising developers and leaseholders, issued an application in the Technology and Construction Court before Constable J for building liability orders ( BLOs) under sections 130–131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) against companies ‘associated’ with Ardmore Construction Ltd ( ACL), the design and build contractor on a residential development. Prior to the hearing, ACL entered administration. Crest asserted that ACL was liable for fire safety defects under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 ( DPA 1972) and sought to extend that liability to its associated companies. The application advanced two strands of relief. First, an ‘anticipatory’ BLO rendering the associated companies jointly and severally liable for any liability later...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—9 April 2026 In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Insolvency litigation The office-holder International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes sustainability strategy 2025–30 The Insolvency Service has unveiled its Sustainability Strategy 2025–30, introduced by Chief Executive Officer Duncan Beach, setting out how the agency intends to cut its environmental footprint and build workforce resilience across England, Scotland and Wales. Progress since 2022–25 includes established sustainability governance, a dedicated team, enhanced carbon data, new policies covering sustainable travel, procurement and thermal comfort, and a combined management system aligned with ISO 14001 and ISO 45001. The updated strategy positions sustainability as a shared, agency‑wide duty and aligns it with the Service’s broader mandate:...
Nicholson and another v Insolvency Practitioners Association and others [2026] EWHC 686 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Every IP is required to obtain a bond (an IP bond) that protects against losses arising from their own fraud or dishonesty. Typically, the IP’s RPB is named as beneficiary, meaning it is the party with standing to pursue a claim where the IP’s fraud or dishonesty causes loss to an insolvent estate. Following Nicholson v IPA, if a successor IP suspects their predecessor inflicted loss on the insolvent company through fraud or dishonesty, the RPB can now be compelled to assign the IP bond to the incoming IP so that the surety can be pursued. The RPB need not first determine that its member acted dishonestly. Nor will it, in general, need to worry about a public law challenge to a...
Factor (as liquidator of Sweetland Ltd (in liquidation)) v Haddad and others [2026] EWHC 410 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? As with many matters of this sort, this decision starkly illustrates how litigation can unravel when a party treats disclosure casually, rather than with the gravity and diligence it deserves. Liquidators often bring proceedings against those who previously managed the company, and many defendants appear without representation. That reality neither explains nor justifies reckless, let alone deliberate, disregard for the rules governing litigation. Every party—and especially insolvency practitioners who, like solicitors, act as officers of the court—must not only understand and observe procedural requirements but also, when called upon, deal with the court with honesty, candour and complete frankness. What was the background? Sweetland Ltd owned and ran a Lebanese bakery. It was a family enterprise operated by three brothers together with Mr...
See: Overview: Liability Management Exercises ( LMEs) Challenging Liability Management Exercises For a summary of the types and procedures associated with informal restructuring tools, consult: Informal restructuring tools—overview. For common questions on LMEs, refer to Practice Note: FAQs on Liability Management Exercises......
See Practice Notes: Victoria PLC— LME deal recap (uptiering) Selecta Group— LME deal summary (hybrid uptiering) For a concise synopsis of the types and procedures of informal restructuring tools, refer to Informal restructuring tools—overview. For common questions on LMEs, please consult Practice Note: FAQs on Liability Management Exercises......
Re Esken Ltd ( Overseas Company Number FC041629) [2026] EWHC 495 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of the case? The judgment confirms that insolvency practitioners can adopt a straightforward route when moving a company with an overseas registered office, but a UK COMI, from administration to liquidation: file a notice at Companies House under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 83, then apply to the court for confirmation pursuant to IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 21.4. In these circumstances, post- Brexit creates no obstacles and there is no inconsistency with other provisions of the IA 1986. Nonetheless, the court voiced reservations about the jurisdiction to place an unregistered company into voluntary winding up under the Retained EU Regulation in different scenarios, in light of IA 1986, s 221, potentially leaving a post- Brexit issue to be determined in other...
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation International restructuring and insolvency Industry/sector guides for R& I lawyers Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Daily and weekly news alerts New content New content Corporate insolvency processes Administration appointments— Procedural defects, retrospective administration orders and costs consequences ( Quantuma v Colin Mear) The High Court, relying on settled authorities and principles, issued declaratory relief, made administration orders retrospective and prolonged the administrations of two related companies by a further 12 months, notwithstanding several procedural defects. That said, the court declined to permit the administrators to claim their costs as administration expenses, concluding it was ‘inappropriate’ for creditors to carry those costs. See News Analysis: Administration appointments— Procedural defects, retrospective administration orders and costs consequences ( Quantuma v Colin Mear), authored by Sam Fenwick, partner, and Boluwatife Amos- Alere, paralegal, at Wedlake Bell LLP......
Lawyers for lenders shut out of the uptier transaction told US Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M Lopez he should conclude that Serta breached its credit agreement by swapping hundreds of millions of dollars of existing debt for fresh, higher-priority obligations as the challengers contended. Susheel Kirpalani of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, speaking for the excluded lenders, said only select financiers were allowed into the deal, contravening the pro rata sharing provisions in Serta's credit documents in those proceedings. Conversely, Gregg Costa of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, for lenders that joined the deal, pressed the court to dismiss those allegations, arguing the excluded investors had 'unclean hands' because they were the first to float a non-pro rata proposal to Serta. ' The excluded lenders threw the first punch,' Costa said. ' They started this; we were responding...
See Practice Note: Getting in the company's property under section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986—key cases For guides covering evidence and gathering, refer to: Evidence and evidence gathering—overview and Evidence gathering and obtaining property—overview......
Quantuma Advisory Limited and others v Colin Mear Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 3580 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Insolvency professionals are unlikely to find the outcome unexpected. It reaffirms that, under rule 12.64 of the Insolvency ( England and Wales) Rules 2016 ( IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, procedural flaws in administrator appointments and in extensions can be rectified only where no injustice arises. The court also signalled a readiness, in suitable circumstances, to make retrospective administration orders to regularise defective extensions, including on a Bradford Bulls footing. Even so, the judgment illustrates the boundaries of the court’s indulgence. Relief was granted where creditors suffered no prejudice and raised no objection, yet the court stressed that the jurisdiction to make retrospective administration orders should be exercised with caution. Practitioners should not assume that retrospective relief will be available as a matter of...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
