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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
In this issue Corporate insolvency processes Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder Property insolvency Financial institutions Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for R& I professionals New content Corporate insolvency processes Standing in liquidation applications ( Mc Ateer v Hat & Mitre plc) In a factually unusual matter, the Court of Appeal decided that an unregistered share transfer was enough to treat the applicant as a member of the company and thus a contributory under the Insolvency Act 1986 ( IA 1986). As a contributory, he could seek relief from the court in the company’s liquidation. He owned 0.02% of the share capital, yet his name did not appear on the register of members. No other shareholder supported his proposals. The court stressed that, in applications of this nature, the majority’s wishes carry weight and, as a result, his minimal interest would be overwhelmed by the majority. The court also examined whether, relying on his...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder Property insolvency Financial institutions Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for R& I professionals Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes August 2024 enforcement outcomes management information The Insolvency Service has refreshed its enforcement outcomes management information tables with figures for August 2024. The data records 65 director disqualifications and 11 bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions secured by the Insolvency Service. See: LNB News 11/09/2024 32. Corporate insolvency processes Water ( Special Measures) Bill [ HL] First reading in the House of Lords took place on 4 September 2024. The Bill introduces provisions on the regulation, governance and special administration of water companies. See: LNB News 05/09/2024 4. Defra publishes policy statement on Water ( Special Measures) Bill The...
Wood and another v Desai and another [2024] EWHC 1893 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? From a practical standpoint, the outcome is vexing, as it uncovers a lacuna that could have been remedied almost a hundred years ago. The judgment observes that Re Harrington Motor Co Ltd, ex p Chaplin [1928] Ch 105 was viewed by the Court of Appeal as highly unsatisfactory, prompting the Third Party ( Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930, which paved the way for today’s TP( RAI) A 2010. Under that statutory scheme, had the company been insolvent at the moment the pay-out was obtained, the respondents would have been within cover and able to receive the funds (assuming they proved their claim). Here, however, the matter fell between the stools: the pay-out was made before the company qualified as a relevant person for the...
Quantum of assigned claims not limited to administration shortfall ( Manolete Partners Plc v Freed & Others) Manolete Partners Plc v Freed & Others [2024] EWHC 2242 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling provides additional reassurance to office-holders and funders when gauging prospective returns from litigation. It confirms that a claimant—whether the office-holder or an assignee—may pursue recovery of the entire sum diverted from the insolvent company, rather than being confined to the deficit remaining in the estate. The judgment therefore supports assessing claims by reference to the value of the impugned transfers themselves, not merely the administration shortfall. ICC Judge Mullen also affirmed the relevance of Manolete Partners Plc v Hope [2022] EWHC 1801 ( Ch) at paragraph 134. There, Zacaroli J declined to conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the ICC Judge’s Proviso; however, he...
In this issue: Directors and insolvency Corporate insolvency processes Insolvency litigation Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for R& I professionals Directors and insolvency BHS directors liable for trading misfeasance in excess of £110m ( Wright v Chappell; Re BHS Group Ltd). Concluding the proceedings against the former BHS leadership, the Court determined the directors were jointly and severally accountable for the uplift in the company’s net deficiency, caused by breaches of duty that kept the business trading. See News Analysis: BHS directors liable for trading misfeasance in the sum of more than £110m ( Wright and others v Chappell and others; Re BHS Group Ltd), by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers. Recovery of improper payments and unlawful dividends from directors of insolvent company ( Manolete Partners v Mohammed). The court accepted, in relation to a number of payments made by the...
What are the practical implications of this case? In Wright and others v Chappell and others; Re BHS Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 2166 ( Ch), there remains a realistic prospect that the judgment may face an appeal in due course; however, for the time being it stands as a helpful—and quite possibly first—authority on how to quantify equitable compensation when a company director breaches the modified Sequana duty ( BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25). It indicates the potential for very substantial awards by confirming that, where the breaches of duty result in the company continuing to trade, the starting position is that misfeasant directors will be jointly and severally responsible for any increase in the company’s net deficiency, so long as their breaches are an effective cause of that increase. A further issue of possible relevance on any appeal is the...
Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Low and another [2024] EWHC 1812 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision carries notable weight and will attract attention from insolvency practitioners, given the court’s readiness to attribute responsibility to Mr Low for the Company’s participation in missing trader intra‑community ( MTIC) fraud without proof that he actually knew of any specific link. Moreover, even though the court accepted Mr Low’s testimony and contention that his role in the Company’s operations was subordinate to at least one other individual with managerial responsibility, his status as a director, by itself, left him accountable for the Company’s financial affairs. Because the Company’s trading bore multiple classic indicators of MTIC fraud, and there was no evidence that Mr Low had carried out appropriate verification or due diligence, the court concluded that his...
Manolete Partners plc v Mohammed and others [2024] EWHC 2053 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The case offers practical direction on directors’ statutory obligations under sections 171–174 of the Companies Act 2006 ( CA 2006). It reinforces the consequences for the validity of distributions where a company’s accounts fail to satisfy statutory requirements and do not present a true and fair picture of its financial condition. It also serves as a clear warning to directors of trading businesses about the risks of not maintaining management accounts and of failing to remain properly informed about current and forecast finances. In this instance, the directors took minimal interest in the company’s genuine trading position and did not rely on dependable methods to assess its present or future financial standing. They treated corporate assets as available for personal ends and made...
Insolvency, revenue law, and civil procedure ( The Commissioners for HMRC v Payroll & Pension Services ( PPS Umbrella Company) Ltd) Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Payroll & Pension Services ( PPS Umbrella Company) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 995 What are the practical implications of this case? Before this ruling, first-instance decisions had split along two paths: one held that HMRC was discharging a public interest or law-enforcement role and so need not provide any cross-undertaking in damages; the other treated HMRC, for these purposes, as no different from a creditor enforcing a debt, requiring a cross-undertaking as the price of the order. The Court of Appeal confirmed the latter strand is right. Because appointing provisional liquidators can have a catastrophic impact on a company’s business, if such relief is wrongly obtained the company now has at least some assurance that it may pursue the...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—29 August 2024 In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Personal insolvency Directors and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Corporate Rescue and Insolvency ( August 2024 edition) New Q& A Corporate insolvency processes Company’s register of members | Conclusive or not for voting rights? ( Bland v Keegan) In proceedings relating to JDK Construction Ltd ( JDK), the Court of Appeal examined a challenge to the lawfulness of a written resolution appointing joint liquidators, alongside allegations of an unauthorised share transfer form. The Appellant argued her shares in JDK were wrongfully transferred, rendering the liquidators’ appointment invalid. The key question was whether the company’s register of members—recording her shares as transferred—was determinative for validating the members’ resolution. Affirming the decision of His Honour Judge Hodge KC, the Court of Appeal held that the register stands as prima...
Bland and another v Keegan [2024] EWCA Civ 934 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling bears significant consequences for practitioners in corporate law, insolvency, and dispute resolution. The main points are: Finality of the Register of Members: It reinforces the assumption that a company’s register of members is definitive as to who the members are, underscoring the importance of keeping it fully accurate for governance and decision-making Rectification of the register: The court clearly emphasises the importance of seeking correction under section 125 of the Companies Act 2006 ( CA 2006) where errors are alleged, signalling the need for lawyers to master the rectification route, the evidential demands, and the prospect of the court granting retrospective rectification Dispute resolution and settlement: It explores the effects of resolving proceedings without a hearing, exemplified by a compromise via a Tomlin Order here. Advisers should ensure...
Umbrella Care Ltd (in liquidation) v Raja; Brittain and another v Raja (a bankrupt) [2024] EWHC 1973 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Insolvency practitioners, acting in varied capacities—here as liquidator of a collapsed company and as trustee in bankruptcy of the director who committed fraud on HMRC via that company—regularly encounter serious non-cooperation. Where the obstruction is acute and there is a genuine risk the respondent may abscond and not return, the court can: Order the respondent’s arrest Impose restrictions preventing departure from the jurisdiction Direct that the respondent’s passport be held by the applicant’s solicitors until issues are concluded This delivers a clear warning to those obliged to assist IPs and obey court orders—engage fully or risk losing the ability to travel overseas. However, the character and persistence of the...
See Practice Notes Consult the following Part 26A restructuring plan deal debriefs: Project Verona Ltd, Revolution Bars Limited, Consort Healthcare ( Tameside) plc, and C‑ Retail Limited (part of the Superdry group). For more depth on restructuring plans in 2023 and what is anticipated in 2024 and beyond, refer to Practice Note: Market Insights Trend Report—trends in Part 26A restructuring plans in 2023. For an overview of restructuring plans, see: Restructuring plan—overview......
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder Daily and weekly news alerts Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for July 2024 The Insolvency Service has released its monthly figures for July 2024 covering company and personal insolvencies in England and Wales. The figures show 2,191 company insolvencies—7% down on the previous month, yet 16% higher than July 2023. For individuals, total insolvencies in July 2024 stood at 10,524, a 24% increase compared with June 2023. See LNB News 20/08/2024 43. Insolvency Service's Dear IP guidance updated The Insolvency Service has issued revisions to its Dear Insolvency Practitioner ( IP) newsletter, which offers guidance for insolvency practitioners and other interested stakeholders. Additions include Articles: 6. Conduct report case closure requests, 70. Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act: new...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—15 August 2024 In this issue: Key R& I law developments; Corporate insolvency processes; Personal insolvency; Restructuring; Insolvency litigation; R& I in Scotland; Daily and weekly news alerts. Key R& I law developments The Insolvency Service has updated its enforcement outcomes management information for July 2024. The figures record 96 director disqualifications, alongside 13 bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions secured by the Service (see LNB News 09/08/2024 14). The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has issued General Licence INT/2024/5028385 under regulation 64 of the Russia ( Sanctions) ( EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It permits payments and other allowed activities linked to the insolvency proceedings of East West United Bank. The licence is effective from 9 August 2024 and expires at 11:59 pm on 8 August 2029 (see LNB News 09/08/2024 35). Corporate insolvency processes Bland v Keegan: the Court of Appeal considered a matter where...
Litigation funding agreements—pricing: assesses fee models, pricing levels, scenarios, and multiples on deployed versus committed capital Litigation funding agreements—adverse costs and security for costs: reviews funders’ adverse costs exposure and security for costs Litigation funding agreements—drawdown processes: sets objectives, submission timing/checks, large or invoice-backed advances, finance team practices Litigation funding agreements—representations and warranties: frames the R& W framework for the solicitor, the case, information sharing, and the LFA Litigation funding agreements—control: covers funder involvement models, solicitor/counsel input, and key decisions Litigation funding agreements—termination clauses: outlines termination triggers and consequences of ending funding Litigation funding agreements—change of legal teams: identifies triggers and practical steps when replacing advisers Litigation funding agreements—dispute resolution: encourages good faith, expert or mediator appointment, arbitration fallback Litigation funding agreements—priorities agreements: sets proceeds waterfalls and whether in LFA or deed Litigation funding agreements—investment top-ups: explains term changes, effecting them, ATE updates, co-funders,...
Re Browne and others [2024] EWHC 1777 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? In this decision, the court examined two matters of practical significance for parties and advisers contemplating a scheme of arrangement: it affirmed its jurisdiction to sanction a scheme that applies the Insolvency ( England and Wales) Rules 2016 ( IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 in a modified form. This is a well-established use of the scheme jurisdiction and is commonly encountered in practice; for example, a scheme might set a cut-off for claims and/or adopt an alternative adjudication route it also held that, although creditors could hold different rights owing to the proposed treatment of their claims under the scheme, the class was not splintered because any disparity in amounts paid to creditors was expected to be modest in practice overall The evaluation of creditor outcomes will always be...
Practice Note: Litigation funding agreements—co-funding Refer to this Practice Note for overviews of...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency procedures Creditors’ involvement Property insolvency Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Restructuring Daily and weekly news alerts New content Key R& I law developments Navigating UK sanctions in bankruptcy proceedings—the Hellard decision ( Hellard V OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank) The High Court issued guidance to the trustees in bankruptcy of a Russian individual on issues arising under the Russia ( Sanctions) ( EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Given the potential for serious criminal and civil penalties, any action taken in an insolvency that touches on actual or suspected sanctioned parties is a high‑risk area for officeholders. The court confirmed that trustees would not breach UK sanctions by permitting sanctioned entities to engage in the bankruptcy process, prior to any distribution, as creditors—this expressly covers voting in...
What are the practical implications of this case? This first‑instance ruling confirms that the safeguarding obligations under the EMRs 2011, SI 2011/99 do not establish a statutory trust. It mirrors the Court of Appeal’s determination that the PSRs 2017, SI 2017/752 similarly do not give rise to a statutory trust. The outcome is practically significant for insolvency practitioners: they can proceed on the footing that merchant monies received by firms regulated under either regime fall within the general asset pool, albeit subject to the relevant safeguarding requirements in the regulations. In addition, the judgment provides pragmatic procedural pointers for scenarios where practitioners are unable to remit client monies—for instance, where the merchant cannot be identified or fails to supply banking particulars—thereby suggesting steps that may properly be taken to address such impasses while maintaining compliance with the safeguarding framework......
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
