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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
What are the practical implications of this case? Auditors, treated as company officers for IA 1986, ss 235–236, are plainly more likely to be compelled to supply records and documents, especially where their working papers satisfy ISA ( UK) 230 and the audit files are needed to assess potential liabilities of auditors/directors. The context of any IA 1986, ss 235–236 request will differ, and the statute does not, in any respect, confine the court’s discretion. The court will weigh the value to the office-holder of obtaining the material against the level of oppression upon the respondent. This indicates that the degree of oppression may shape the court’s view of how far the office-holder’s stated need is reasonable, per Cloverbay Ltd v BCCI SA [1991] Ch 90, as circumstances require, case-by-case, in practice......
Gladwin v RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP and others [2024] EWHC 3054 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Although Mr Gladwin appeared as a litigant in person at the hearing in October 2024 (the Hearing), he had enjoyed legal representation until September 2024. Notwithstanding that support, he still failed to comply with the unless order. The court’s approach to relief from sanctions here provides practical guidance for practitioners confronted with meritless or vexatious applications by litigants in person. The judge did not hesitate to conclude that the relief Mr Gladwin sought was doomed. In addition, litigants in person do not obtain ‘special treatment’ when they have committed clear and egregious breaches of orders. Consequently, practitioners need not be reticent about advancing robust submissions against litigants in person where there has been serious non-compliance with procedural rules or unless orders. The...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Restructuring Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Insolvency litigation Directors and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New Q& As Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for February 2025 The Insolvency Service has released its February 2025 monthly statistics, covering both company and personal insolvencies throughout England and Wales. The figures indicate there were 2,035 corporate insolvencies in the period, 3% above January 2025 yet 7% below the same month in 2024. For individuals, January 2025 recorded 10,147 insolvencies in total, 4% higher than in January 2025 and 5% lower than February 2024. See: LNB News 18/03/2025 27. Companies House publishes two guidance documents on identity...
Martin v Mc Laren Construction Ltd and Mc Laren Construction Ltd v Martin Dawn Plc [2025] EWHC 406 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision confirms that a debtor cannot fend off winding-up or bankruptcy petitions merely by disputing the sum claimed or pointing to set-offs or counterclaims exceeding the petition debt, in order to resist such relief. The court will interrogate the parties’ material in depth, weighing what is produced on both sides, and will apply an approach comparable to that used on a summary judgment application when assessing whether there is a real defence. While recognising that conspiracies are typically concealed and often difficult to evidence directly, a litigant advancing such an allegation must still produce some evidential foundation for it, particularly where the contention is not inherently convincing or appears improbable on its face. The...
The Court of Appeal declined to halt a rescue plan that, according to the High Court, would enable Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (the UK’s largest water company) to avoid being placed into special administration. A coalition of junior creditors and Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard challenged the decision after the High Court signed off the arrangement in February 2025. Most of the company’s biggest creditors backed the package. In an order sealed on 17 March 2025, the Court of Appeal confirmed the plan remained sanctioned and dismissed the appeals......
Re Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 338 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Under the plan, TWUL will receive up to £3bn in liquidity from a cohort of its current senior lenders (‘the Class A Creditors’), whilst it continues to take steps to implement a stable, long‑term restructuring plan. As Leech J observed, it seems improbable that TWUL will carry the entire debt burden over the long term—he considered it likely that the Class A Creditors will accept a ‘substantial haircut’ to deliver the long‑term restructuring. Liquidity from existing senior creditors will underpin a stable, long‑term restructuring plan in full. Leech J’s judgment is dense with familiar yet critical practical guidance, emphasising: the need to file expert evidence precisely directed at the issues under consideration; the pitfalls where factual witnesses are unfamiliar with the documents on which they give...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—13 March 2025 In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder R& I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New Q& A Key R& I law developments Key R& I law developments Companies House announces launch for authorised agent registration service Companies House confirmed its platform to enrol authorised corporate service providers ( ACSPs) will go live on 18 March 2025, after a short postponement. As part of implementing the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, the service will allow trust and company service providers and other professional providers supervised for anti money laundering in the UK to obtain ACSP status. Those providers will then be permitted to perform...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—6 March 2025 In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New Practice Note New Practice Note Corporate insolvency processes Pre-pack administration application ( Marko Ventures Ltd v London Antiaging Clinic Ltd) The court approved an administration application brought by the company’s majority shareholder, acting in its capacity as a creditor. It was satisfied the company was insolvent and that a proposed pre-pack transfer of the business and assets to a new entity established by the applicant’s beneficial owners was the route most likely to deliver the optimum return to creditors. The ruling highlights that, where an administration order is sought to enable a pre-pack sale, a suitably robust...
Office Properties PL Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Adcamp LLP and another [2025] EWHC 170 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores how broad the court’s discretion is to allow amendments after limitation has run. That discretion was exercised in the claimants’ favour, even though (1) the slip was their own; and (2) had permission been refused, the claimants might have possessed a strong claim against their legal advisers stemming from the mistake. The court’s stance offers comfort to litigators when liability issues are intricate: such as where ‘an assignment was overlooked, or where the effect of a corporate merger on the whereabouts of a claim was not appreciated, resulting in the joinder of the wrong (sometimes non-existent)’ party. The operative approach was to grant the amendment unless there existed a sound reason to withhold it, on the facts of the...
Written by Aziz Abdul, legal director, and Brian Rostron, associate, at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. Contract Natural Gas Ltd (in liquidation) v ZOG Energy Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] EWHC 86 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is useful as it establishes, for the first time, how limitation applies to administrations begun after the Enterprise Act 2002. The court acknowledged that allowing time to continue after entry into administration may increase legal costs and complicate steps for creditors, who may feel compelled to issue protective claims to protect their positions. Nonetheless, those policy points were not compelling enough to support a statutory trust or to determine that time ceases to run. Reflecting the approach in Re Maxwell Fleet and Facilities Management Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 323, the court indicated that any gap in the law on the impact of an...
Societa Italiana Lastre Sp A: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation ( France) lodged on 22 August 2023— Societa Italiana Lastre Sp A v Agora , Case C-537/23 In a nutshell—reinforced legal certainty but questions remain The court held that asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are to be assessed by reference to the autonomous framework in Article 25 of Regulation ( EU) 1215/2012 (the Brussels I (recast) Regulation), rather than under Member States’ national laws, and confirmed their effectiveness where the clause can be interpreted as designating courts within EU or Lugano States. This development dispels several prior uncertainties, in particular those arising from the shifting case law of the French Supreme Court. The finer points of the ruling and any practical consequences—especially the requirement that the clause be read as designating courts of EU or Lugano States—call for closer analysis;...
Re Revolution Bars Ltd [2024] EWHC 2949 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Concisely distilling and referencing the pertinent common law, this decision serves as a pointed reminder to practitioners about circumstances in which a 'meeting' may fail to qualify as a meeting for creditor/member meetings and for cross-class cram downs under sections 901F and 901G of the Companies Act 2006 ( CA 2006), including considerations around headcount, who is physically in attendance, and the role of proxies. It further illustrates when the fairness of a plan for 'out of the money' creditors ought properly to be weighed, marking an exception to what could otherwise be treated as the default position. The court endorsed, without hesitation, the High Court’s earlier conclusion that the opinions of 'out of the money creditors' carry minimal weight because they lack any real economic stake in the...
Marko Ventures Ltd v London Antiaging Clinic Ltd [2025] EWHC 340 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? It is settled law that, where an administration application is made concerning a planned pre-pack sale of a company’s business and assets, the applicant must conduct a robust marketing process that satisfies SIP 16 and place sufficient evidence of that compliance before the court. The rationale is that pre-pack transactions present a heightened risk of misuse and detriment to creditors, particularly where the intended buyer is a connected party (see Re Kayley Vending Ltd [2009] EWHC 904 ( Ch); Re Moss Groundworks Ltd [2019] EWHC 2825 ( Ch)). Historically, in reported decisions, the party seeking the administration order has been the company and/or its directors. Here, however, the application arose against the broader backdrop of a shareholders’ dispute: the company’s majority...
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New Q& As Corporate insolvency processes Water ( Special Measures) Act 2025 This Act sets out measures on the oversight, governance and special administration of water companies. It commenced in part on 24 February 2025, will commence further on 24 April 2025, and will take full effect on a day to be appointed by regulations made by the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers. See: LNB News 25/02/2025 12. Court approves administrators' Paragraph 71 applications ( Kennedy v Fonds Rusnano Capital SA) The High Court sanctioned administrators’ bids under paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 to dispose of assets subject to fixed charges owned by four English companies without the fixed charge holder’s consent. Given the pressured timetable, the...
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Ahmedivand [2025] EWHC 98 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores the weight the court places on misuse of the BBL scheme when assessing applications to disqualify directors in such cases, and it treats that conduct with particular seriousness. The court’s stance is uncompromising: conduct of this nature, taken on its own, can justify a finding of unfitness, and the fact that the alleged misconduct concerns a scheme that has already closed does not dilute that assessment. Misuse of the scheme alone can ground unfitness to act as a director. The absence of any ongoing scheme, and thus no real chance of repetition, is not a mitigating factor. In arriving at this view, the court referenced prior authority, notably Re DEEA Construct Ltd [2023] EWHC 2084 ( Ch). In that...
Cresta Estates Ltd and other companies v MPB Developments Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 198 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This case examines the Supreme Court’s remarks on the IA 1986, s 123 insolvency test in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail‑ UK 2007‑3BL plc [2013] 1 WLR 1408 ( Eurosail), and maps the later authorities that have developed those observations, with a particular emphasis on applying the test where liabilities fall due a long way into the future. It surveys how those principles have been treated since Eurosail, especially in relation to such long‑dated obligations. As a reminder, under the ‘balance sheet test’ a company is regarded as unable to discharge its debts if ‘it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company’s assets is less than the amount of its...
Kennedy and others v Fonds Rusnano Capital, SA [2025] EWHC 112 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? When bringing a Paragraph 71 application, administrators should show that they have done all they reasonably can to supply adequate information to the secured creditor(s) in advance of issuing the application and have given that creditor a chance to respond. The material required will depend on the particular circumstances, but may include: a review of contingency options; information about any marketing process (accelerated or otherwise); and details of the company’s financial position. The scope and depth of the material provided will be shaped by the particular situation facing the company concerned. In every case. Administrators are obliged to achieve proper and fair value for the assets (i.e. a 'proper price'). To do so, they must obtain sufficient valuation evidence of the assets’ market value and be...
The statement follows: EU justice ministers plan to examine ways to establish ‘pre-pack insolvency proceedings’ in the EU on 7 March 2025, according to a discussion note prepared for the meeting and viewed by MLex. A pre-pack is a legal mechanism that enables arranging and preparing the sale of a failing company ahead of the commencement of the formal insolvency process. The paper adds: ‘ This allows the sale to be carried out and the proceeds allocated soon after the official opening of insolvency proceedings’, the document says......
Consult Practice Note: Prohibited names—key cases. For a summary of prohibited names, see Prohibited names—overview...
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
