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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Goring and another [2024] EWHC 1024 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the first question decided in this judgment—whether a guarantee existed—was strictly a matter of evidence, the second limb, from paragraph 148, looks more broadly at what amounts to ‘adequate checks’ where company directors have taken professional advice. That part offers a clear example of the significance attached to a director’s dependence on expert input. It signals the court’s approach to directors who engage and heed professional advisers. Put shortly, if a director lacks expertise in the field and proceeds in line with professional guidance, their conduct will very likely be regarded as reasonable and sufficient, even if, with hindsight, additional steps might have been taken. What was the background? Active Ticking Ltd (the ‘ Company’) was formed to acquire, develop and...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—4 July 2024 In this issue: Restructuring Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Insolvency litigation International restructuring and insolvency Financial institutions R& I in Scotland Lex Talk® Restructuring & Insolvency: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New content Latest Q& A Restructuring Market Insights Trend Report—developments in Part 26A restructuring plans during 2023. What patterns are emerging in Part 26A restructuring plans ( RPs)? The Market Insights Trend Report delivers detailed evaluation of RPs brought forward in 2023 and shares perspectives on what we and our contributors anticipate through 2024 and beyond; Tom Smith KC ( South Square), Katharina Crinson and Craig Montgomery ( Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer), Paul Sidle, Richard Hodgson and Nick Le Masurier ( Linklaters LLP), Adrian Cohen and Sunay Radia, Mc Dermott Will & Emery LLP. See News Analysis: Market Insights Trend Report—trends in Part 26A restructuring plans in 2023. Judgment Alert Consort Healthcare ( Tameside) Plc v Tameside and Glossop...
What does the Market Insights Trend Report cover? Click below to download the complete report in PDF form. The Market Insights Trend Report offers an in-depth review of the 14 RPs proposed in the UK in 2023. It shares insights on trends and what we, together with our contributors, expect to unfold in 2024 and beyond. Areas examined include: outlook for 2024 place of incorporation industry sectors classes of creditor relevant alternatives challenges use of cross-class cramdown ( CCCD) foreign law expert opinions sought on recognition legal developments in 2023 The report also sets out metrics for RPs including Fitness First, Prezzo and Adler ( AGPS Bondco). What are the highlights from the report?......
Ackerman v Leeds and others [2024] EWHC 1215 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? No earlier authority had directly examined whether a challenge under IA 1986, s 303 is shut out once trustees have secured their release. The prevailing commentary—found in leading practitioner texts or in obiter remarks by judges, and without close analysis—had generally indicated that a trustee’s release should bar subsequent attacks on the trustee’s decisions. It is therefore helpful to see the point squarely addressed, even if the analysis is not binding on later cases. That discussion has practical value despite lacking binding force... What was the background? Mr Ackerman moved to contest his bankruptcy trustees’ decision to enter a settlement and to assign potential claims of his estate arising from long‑running litigation with several relatives. The trustees completed the assignment and settlement in 2017, and in 2018 Mr...
Practice Note: Litigation funding agreements—dispute resolution Refer to the Practice Note for overviews of the funding...
Concluding that the Bankruptcy Code bars non-consensual releases of third-party claims against non-debtors, the high court has stripped debtors of the means to compel settlements on objecting creditors where claims against non-debtors are involved. This refinement of the Chapter 11 rules introduces fresh obstacles for debtors in plan settlement discussions. For matters yet to be filed, or those not at the confirmation stage, the pursuit of ‘global peace’ has become more difficult. Jim Morgan of Howard & Howard LLP told Law360 that his first impression is that the ruling delivers significantly greater economic clout to claimants and creditors, and he believes its impact will extend beyond mass tort liabilities. The most pronounced effect, Morgan noted, is that claimants will enjoy enhanced leverage in Chapter 11 plan negotiations, since without their agreement any deal will fall short of the...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—27 June 2024 In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Insolvency litigation Personal insolvency The office-holder Daily and weekly news alerts New content Corporate insolvency processes Judgment Alert: Sian Participation Corp (in liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16 Where a winding-up petition debt is contested and governed by an arbitration agreement, the Privy Council concluded that the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Salford Estates v Altomart was wrongly decided and, via a Withers v Joyce direction, should no longer be followed in England and Wales. The applicable test in such circumstances is whether the debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds. Judgment Alert: Manning (in their capacity as joint administrators of Festicket Ltd) v 2 Four 6 Marketing Ltd [2024] EWHC 1554 ( Ch) The Chancery Division considered whether a trust existed over monies held by the...
Sian Participation Corp (in liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd ( Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16 What are the practical implications of this case? For insolvency practitioners, the decision confirms that, even where the underlying liability is governed by an arbitration clause, the court’s threshold on a winding-up petition remains the familiar one: is the debt genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, rather than a mere ‘cloud of objection’? It is no longer sufficient for the company simply to decline to admit the debt, as under the former Salford approach. One would anticipate the same stance being taken across other insolvency processes, such as a petition for administration. In tandem, the ruling removes any distinction in treatment between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and arbitration clauses. The policy objective of encouraging arbitration does not warrant treating arbitration clauses differently from exclusive jurisdiction clauses when deciding whether a winding-up petition should be...
Hyde and another (in their capacity as joint liquidators of Radarbeam Ltd, a company in liquidation) v Todd [2024] EWHC 1423 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision sets out a concise overview of the principles a judge applies when considering an application for summary judgment on a contribution claim under IA 1986, s 214, based on alleged ‘wrongful trading’. The court clarified that, for a s 214 claim to succeed, the applicant must establish that, at a point before the company’s winding up began, the director knew, or ought to have concluded, that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation or administration. If that state of knowledge is proven, the applicant must then show that the company suffered loss due to the director’s failure to place the company into insolvent...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—20 June 2024 In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Document review Insolvency litigation Restructuring Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for R& I professionals New content Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for May 2024 The Insolvency Service has released its May 2024 monthly figures covering corporate and individual insolvency. Registrations show 2,006 company insolvencies, 21% fewer than May 2023, yet above levels recorded during the coronavirus ( COVID-19) pandemic and the 2014–2019 period. For individuals, total insolvencies in May 2024 reached 9,266, a 3% increase on May 2023. See: LNB News 18/06/2024 32. Corporate insolvency processes Paid-up secured creditors and consent to extensions ( Re Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd) The court was asked to decide whether secured creditors, repaid in full after the company entered administration, could be ignored when an administrator seeks creditor approval to prolong their term of...
See Practice Notes: Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Pizza Express Financing 2 PLC Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Virgin Active Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (first plan) Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— National Car Parks Limited Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Hurricane Energy PLC Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief—gategroup Guarantee Limited Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Deep Ocean Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Amicus Finance PLC (in administration) Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (second plan) Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Houst Ltd Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Hong Kong Airlines Ltd Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— ED& F Man...
East Riding of Yorkshire Council as administrating authority of the East Riding Pension Fund v KMG SICAV- SIF- SA [2024] EWHC 1069 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? While numerous decisions explore how IA 1986, ss 220 and 221 operate, there is comparatively little guidance on what amounts to an ‘unregistered company’ and how far that concept extends. IA 1986, s 220(1) states that, for this Part, an “unregistered company” includes any association and any company, save for a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 in any part of the United Kingdom. The judgment offers a significant examination of how that wording applies to an entity that is neither an association nor a company lacking UK registration, yet which may exhibit certain corporate features. The court was invited to treat the statutory definition as...
Re Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd [2024] EWHC 1425 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? At first glance, the decision appears to assist office-holders. In practice, a creditor who has already been paid in full is even less inclined than most to take part in the insolvency process, and this judgment clarifies that they can be left out of account for that purpose. However, when the Insolvency Service released its First Review of the Insolvency ( England and Wales) Rules 2016 ( IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 on 5 April 2022 (the Insolvency Service Report), it recorded a different governmental stance—essentially that creditor categorisation is fixed at the point of entry into administration and then continues, regardless of any subsequent repayment in full......
What are the practical implications of this case? In a standard, rather than mental health, breathing space moratorium, a creditor will generally find it simpler to persuade the court to continue with a bankruptcy petition already on foot than to secure permission to present a fresh petition, because, in the former scenario, the court’s discretion is not constrained by the limitations imposed by the breathing space legislation, whereas seeking to present during the moratorium engages those constraints. Moreover, in applying those statutory limits, where the debtor has had ample time to obtain advice, explore alternative solutions, and prepare adequately for a hearing, allowing the petition to proceed will not be viewed as causing the debtor any detriment. A petition will also not constitute an abuse of process for an extraneous purpose merely because a creditor is angry or vengeful; rather, there must be...
Re UKCloud Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] EWHC 1259 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? In Re UKCloud Ltd (in liquidation), the court concluded that security over Internet Protocol ( IP) addresses operated as a floating charge, despite wording in the debenture purporting to create a fixed charge. What proved decisive was the absence of genuine, operational control exercised by the chargee in practice. The ruling serves as a caution that a fixed charge requires demonstrable control by the secured party; mere restrictions on disposals in the security document will not suffice where, in reality, the chargor is left free to conduct its business and use the assets as it chooses. The court was further guided by earlier authorities endorsing an ‘all or nothing’ approach, under which assets captured by a single charging clause must all take the same...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—13 June 2024 In this issue: Insolvency litigation Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency International restructuring & insolvency R& I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for R& I professionals Insolvency litigation BHS directors to pay liquidators £27m for wrongful trading Law360: On 11 June 2024, a London judge directed two former directors of the collapsed retailer BHS to pay £13.5m each to the liquidators, having determined they knew the company was beyond recovery when it was acquired in 2015. See News Analysis: BHS directors to pay liquidators £27m for wrongful trading and [2024] EWHC 1417 ( Ch). Declaration of trust held to be a transaction defrauding creditors ( Wade v Singh) The liquidators sought to enforce a judgment against a property jointly owned by the judgment debtor and his...
Wade and another v Singh and others [2024] EWHC 1203 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? There are two principal lessons for practitioners. First, treated as a preliminary question, was whether the liquidators could rely on determinations made in earlier misfeasance proceedings. Those proceedings targeted the insolvent company’s directors, not the daughter-in-law claiming to hold the whole beneficial interest in the property. As a general rule, a judgment obtained by A against B is not evidence against C, yet counsel could identify no authority on the scenario where A secures a judgment against B and then seeks to deploy the findings from that decision against B in a later claim brought by A against B and C. The judge ultimately considered it unnecessary to resolve the issue, though the point will almost certainly surface again. The second area of note...
Burke and others v Peabody Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 392 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment confirmed and reinforced the principle that, in almost all cases, a nominee will only be held responsible for the costs of a voluntary arrangement that is later set aside for unfair prejudice or material irregularity where there is a discernible element of serious personal misconduct by the nominee. What was the background? Two creditors of a company that was in a CVA (‘the Company’) commenced proceedings against the Company to contest the CVA, alleging unfair prejudice and material irregularities in respect of the CVA......
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
