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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Corporate Rescue and Insolvency The latest Corporate Rescue and Insolvency issue ( December 2024) is now offered on Lexis +® UK, available solely to those with an active subscription......
Riedweg v (1) HCC International Insurance Plc, (2) Sheridan v (1) Forsters LLP, (2) Johns [2024] EWHC 2805 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Master Brightwell’s ruling, which accords with and develops prior authority, makes clear that an insurer cannot itself add to the proceedings alleged tortfeasors or other parties whom the insured could have joined. Practitioners for insurers should be quick to seek to persuade claimants to join the insured, even if that involves accepting the costs consequences of such joinder, where doing so serves their interests in bringing in other prospective defendants... What was the background? The claimant issued a professional negligence claim. She alleged that Goldplaza Berkeley Square Ltd ( Goldplaza) negligently overvalued a property she agreed to buy for £8m in December 2016. She said she would not have entered into the purchase but for that...
Manolete Partners plc v White [2024] EWCA Civ 1418 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal has overturned the first‑instance decision in Manolete Partners plc v White; Re Lloyds British Testing Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] EWHC 567 ( Ch). It provides a significant interpretation of section 91(2) of the Pensions Act 1995, confirming that the court cannot make orders that would obstruct an individual from receiving occupational pension benefits. The appellate court criticised the High Court for approving an order aimed at circumventing the statutory restriction. It also firmly disagreed that section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confers jurisdiction to force a member to draw down a pension, even where the scheme grants a right to do so. This ruling is materially important for insolvency and pensions practitioners. It reaffirms the...
In its 2025 review of principal D& O risk themes, the German carrier warned that the insurance market faces elevated 'loss potential' over the next year, as outlined in its report for the period ahead. D& O cover shields a company’s top executives (directors and officers) against actions pursued by shareholders, regulators, staff, or clients. According to Allianz’s modelling, business failures are set to rise by 11% in 2025. No comparative data was provided by the insurer......
Re KRF Services ( UK) Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 2978 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? For private limited companies using the Model Articles, the ruling confirms that a single director can properly approve board resolutions and commit the company, whether that individual has always acted alone or previously sat on a board with multiple directors, and may do so without infringing the company’s authority or capacity. From 5 December 2024, the Sanctions ( EU Exit) ( Miscellaneous Amendments) ( No 2) Regulations 2024 (the Amendment Regulations), SI 2024/1157, create a distinct insolvency licensing purpose within the Russia ( Sanctions) ( EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the 2019 Sanctions Regulations), SI 2019/855, Pt 1ZB, paragraph 9DD. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the prior licensing purposes were not always adequate to authorise activities connected with insolvency proceedings, and the new ground supplies a...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—5 December 2024 In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder R& I in Scotland Case bulletins Industry/sector guides for R& I lawyers Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Key R& I law developments New Supreme Court Practice Directions published The Supreme Court has released the Supreme Court Practice Directions, November 2024. These introduce a new Practice Direction P—the Case Management Portal—which explains how to operate the Portal, accessible via the Court’s website. Both the refreshed website and the Portal went live on 4 December 2024. See: LNB News 02/12/2024 57. UKSC and JCPC launch new websites and online Case Management Portal The UK Supreme Court ( UKSC) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy...
When mini-bond investments fail—fraudulent trading and other claims ( London Capital & Finance v Thomson) London Capital & Finance plc (in administration) and others v Thomson and others [2024] EWHC 2894 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The clearest takeaway is that probity is paramount. In short, the defendants were undone by deceit and avarice. To expand, the court accepted a contention from the Claimants that LCF functioned, in effect, as a Ponzi scheme—defined as an arrangement whereby interest and other amounts owed to earlier investors are discharged using proceeds from later investment. The apparent purpose was to advantage four specific individuals by raising funds to be used for their benefit, or for companies in which they had an interest. The claims against two of those people, who were directors of recipient companies, were resolved. The remaining two were,...
Re Coinfloor Ltd (in members’ voluntary liquidation) [2024] EWHC 2767 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is significant for: confirming that doing nothing can, in context, amount to agreement to a novation by conduct; and setting out a practical framework for dealing with inactive customers or stakeholders, such as shareholders or creditors, who do not engage with a business sale or a liquidation. Conceptual implications As a general rule, novating a contract requires the agreement of all parties, and a court may infer that agreement after the event from the parties’ conduct (unless the contract insists on express consent). This judgment widens the notion of ‘action’ to encompass a party’s inaction. However, inaction alone will not prove novation; it must be accompanied by knowledge of the novation. Put another way, the passive party must be told of the transfer and still choose to remain...
South Square Digest In this issue, Tom Smith KC and Adam Al‑ Attar KC explore whether amending the statutory majority in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 could further strengthen the international competitiveness of UK restructuring processes, while Rory Brown (who acted for the Appellant in Lifestyle v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17) assesses the Supreme Court’s ruling on director’s liability. Also featured are two case notes on notable and timely rulings: Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2024] UKSC 39, a summary of the Supreme Court’s first cross‑border insolvency decision since Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, and London Capital and Finance Plc ( In Administration) v Thompson [2024] EWHC 2894 ( Ch), addressing fraudulent trading, knowing receipt, and the bona fide purchaser defence. Click here to access the full December 2024 edition of the South Square Digest......
Malin Industrial Concrete Floors Ltd (in Administration) v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd [2024] EWHC 2890 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? It is settled law that the court will not move to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in favour of a claimant that is insolvent without first scrutinising the particular circumstances. Whether enforcement is appropriate will be shaped by several considerations: the nature of the insolvency procedure to which the claimant is subject; the presence of security for the judgment sum or for any cross-claim advanced by the defendant; and the wording and effect of the adjudicator’s decision itself. This decision offers a clear illustration of how the courts may evaluate these factors, while steering a course between the statutory adjudication framework (under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996) and the requirements of insolvency law…...
Re Chaptre Finance Plc [2024] EWHC 2908 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? For a cross-class cram-down, the company proposing it must prove both statutory limbs in CA 2006, s 901G. Such applications typically hinge on expert opinion. Miles J was unequivocal: valuation and outcome analyses relied upon must comply with CPR Part 35. He noted that, had Chaptre Finance Plc relied only on the opinion material filed for the convening hearing, it would probably have failed to satisfy the no worse off condition. He likewise rejected the opponents’ half-way house, where they sought to attack Chaptre Finance Plc’s belated CPR Part 35 reports using nothing more than a letter of opinion. Where creditors wish to challenge expert evidence on either s 901G condition, they should: seek permission to cross-examine the applicant company’s expert(s); and file their own CPR Part...
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Insolvency trading issues Directors and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Corporate insolvency processes Judgment Alert: Re KRF Services ( UK) Ltd [2024] EWHC 2978 ( Ch) This decision arose from a High Court hearing of an application for an administration order and focused on two principal points: (i) whether a sole director’s resolution to seek administration was effective, and (ii) the effect of the sanctions regime. On the first issue, the court examined the Model Articles adopted by the company in unamended form and considered the authorities of Re Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd [2022] EWHC 191 ( Ch) and Re Active Wear Ltd [2022] EWHC 2340 ( Ch). The judge held that, in the circumstances of this case, the resolution was valid......
Introduction The wave of insolvencies across the construction sector is profoundly troubling, with firms still acutely exposed. Although contractor failure is not new in a market defined by thin profit margins, fixed‑price contracts and cash‑hungry, cash‑intensive delivery, ISG’s recent collapse starkly illustrates persistent challenges: heavy dependence on cash flow and the difficulty of steering multiple stakeholders on major, complex projects. Such pressures pervade large‑scale schemes throughout the industry. With the new Labour government unveiling ambitious infrastructure and housing programmes, the insolvency question is even more pressing, and lessons must be learnt to avert future industry failures. In this article, we outline the principal causes and the usual red flags that signal distress, before exploring particular insolvency concerns from both employer and contractor viewpoints. Building on that analysis, we then set out practical measures for managing risk effectively, followed by...
Maxima Creditor Resolutions Ltd v Fealy and another [2024] EWHC 2694 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? When assessing whether the test for being non-dormant under The Third Excepted Case is engaged, directors and their advisers must scrutinise the company’s trading record across the 12 months before the first company’s insolvency, alongside the dormancy framework in CA 2006, ss 1169 and 386. That said, the Companies Act requirements and IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 22.7(b) are not aligned on dormancy. To come within The Third Excepted Case, directors must be able to demonstrate that, throughout the entire qualifying year preceding the first company’s insolvent liquidation, the company carried out the kind of significant accounting transactions contemplated by CA 2006, ss 1169 and 386—namely those that s 386 requires to be entered in the company’s accounting records. Proof that such...
Britain's top court has rejected efforts by a Russian bankruptcy trustee to overturn a decision that English courts cannot recognise a bankruptcy order. A five-judge panel unanimously dismissed Lyubov Kireeva's bid, brought in her capacity as a Russian bankruptcy trustee, to have English courts acknowledge the bankruptcy order made against Bedzhamov, the former owner of Vneshprombank LLC, which failed in 2016. The appeal turned on the 'immovables rule', an English law principle under which foreign tribunals lack authority over land situated in England, meaning only English courts and property rights law can govern real estate in the country. In a brief oral judgment at Britain's highest court, Justice David Richards concluded that every submission advanced by Kireeva's legal team was 'incompatible with the immovables rule'. At the 2023 hearing, her counsel had urged the court, in this matter, to relax the...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Insolvency litigation Insurance and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New Q& A Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for October 2024 The Insolvency Service has released its October 2024 monthly figures on corporate and individual insolvencies in England and Wales. There were 1,747 corporate insolvencies, a 10% decrease from September 2024 and 24% lower than October 2023. For individuals, total insolvencies in October 2024 reached 8,952, down 14% on September 2024 and broadly similar to October 2023. See: LNB News 19/11/2024 45. New sanctions guidance for insolvency practitioners and letting agents The Sanctions ( EU Exit) ( Miscellaneous Amendments) ( No.2) Regulations 2024 ( SI...
Background It is a long-standing rule in England and Wales that disputes over rights and interests in land and other immovables are determined by the law of the place where the asset is located, commonly called the ‘immovables rule’. This appeal concerns the impact, if any, of that rule on a claim by a bankruptcy trustee appointed in foreign bankruptcy proceedings to immovable property located in England. The point arose in respect of a London property owned by the Respondent, Mr Bedzhamov (the ‘ Property’). A Russian national, Mr Bedzhamov left Russia in 2015 and has not resided there since. In 2018, a Russian court adjudicated him bankrupt and appointed the Appellant, Ms Kireeva, as trustee of his bankruptcy estate. Under Russian law, the Property forms part of that estate and Ms Kireeva is obliged to take possession of and sell the...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office holder Partnership insolvency Financial Institutions International restructuring and insolvency Industry/sector guides Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Key R& I law developments Litigation funding report signals overhaul of sector The Civil Justice Council has signalled it may introduce oversight of third-party funding and impose fee caps, following rapid market growth and concerns it contributed to the failure of a firm specialising in consumer claims. See: Litigation funding report signals overhaul of sector. Corporate insolvency processes Insolvency Service declares the shut down of a fraudulent women's retail company The Insolvency Service has confirmed the winding up of two affiliated China-based online retailers, Hario Trading and Sayhi...
DDR v BDR [2024] EWFC 278 What are the practical implications of this case? As well as offering a highly accessible distillation and application of the principles governing disputes over property between a sole legal proprietor and a non-legal claimant asserting a beneficial interest, this judgment underlines the truly basic distinction between the court’s declaratory function in property matters and its redistributive powers under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 ( MCA 1973). It also offers a template for the clear, targeted presentation of financial remedy applications. Where questions arise about the scope of a party’s bankruptcy estate, the approach must be equally disciplined. Its structured reasoning demonstrates how to keep such issues sharply defined and tightly analysed throughout the conduct of the application, from start to finish. The judge’s careful, methodical analysis should not mask the 'somewhat unfocused and...
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
