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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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: Key R& I law developments Restructuring Insolvency litigation The office-holder Tax and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes February 2026 enforcement outcomes management information The Insolvency Service has refreshed its enforcement outcomes management information tables for February 2026. Figures indicate 114 director disqualifications, together with eight bankruptcy and debt relief restrictions. See: LNB News 19/03/2026 36. Insolvency Service launches consultation on corporate civil enforcement reforms The Insolvency Service has opened a consultation on corporate civil enforcement reforms, seeking feedback on 11 proposals to update the director disqualification and company winding-up framework. Headline reforms comprise mandatory disqualification where public interest winding-up orders are made, creation of a new director restrictions regime for less serious misconduct, and moving disqualification decision-making from the courts to the Secretary of State, with a right of appeal to a...
Practice Note Refer to misfeasance actions against administrators pursuant to paragraph 75...
The Parties listed at Schedule 1 to the N244 v Kroll Trustee Services [2026] EWHC 216 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers clear direction on how the court may deploy its discretion to order pre-action disclosure in disputed debt restructurings. Creditors can take increased comfort about securing such relief, and counterparties should think more carefully about providing restructuring transaction documents voluntarily at the pre-action stage in comparable situations. Information asymmetries in restructuring disputes The court treated the imbalance of information between the applicants and Kroll/the ad hoc group (the latter expected to be added as defendants in due course) as, in itself, a factor weighing in favour of disclosure. It concluded that ordering pre-action disclosure would cause minimal disruption to Kroll while materially assisting the applicants in shaping their case. Limited classes of documents for which disclosure is...
Consult the Practice Note: Duty to co‑operate with office‑holder under section 235 of the Insolvency Act 1986—key cases. For summaries on evidence and gathering, see: Evidence and evidence gathering—overview and Evidence gathering and obtaining property—overview......
News Analysis Lexis+® UK ( Kathy Stones) collaborated with INSOL Europe ( Ph D. Dr. Myriam Mailly) on a joint initiative to gather updates from selected INSOL Europe members and Country Co-ordinators, reflecting on how the new restructuring procedures introduced by EU Member States to implement Directive ( EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to improve the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive ( EU) 2017/1132 (the EU Directive), are being used in practice, what is operating effectively, and whether further enhancements could be made. This News Analysis provides only a concise overview of the findings. Practitioners should review this News Analysis alongside the original articles prepared by certain INSOL Europe members and Country...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments The office-holder Corporate insolvency processes Insolvency litigation Directors and insolvency R& I in Scotland Corporate Rescue and Insolvency ( February 2026) Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Key R& I law developments Companies House has confirmed it has rectified a security flaw in its Web Filing service, detected on 13 March 2026, which might have enabled signed-in users to view and amend aspects of other companies’ information without permission. Web Filing was taken offline at 1:30pm on 13 March 2026 and reinstated at 9am on 16 March 2026 after investigation and independent testing. The review found the weakness—introduced during an October 2025 system update—may have exposed non-public company data, including dates of birth, residential addresses and email addresses. Companies House stated that...
Lanigan and another v Hyslop and others [2026] EWHC 128 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision delivers a valuable analysis of how office-holders should approach assigning causes of action that may comprise part of an insolvent company’s or individual’s assets, while acknowledging that they will often lack the resources and time to carry out thorough investigations into prospective claims. At the same time, it underlines that office-holders cannot invoke limited time or funding to justify a choice that cannot be objectively defended. The judgment is also notably instructive on standing to apply under IA 1986, s 168(5), and on the criteria the court will deploy when determining that question. It should not be presumed that a creditor automatically has standing; it must be evident that the applicant proceeds in their capacity as a creditor and not, for...
Corporate Rescue and Insolvency The February 2026 edition of Corporate Rescue and Insolvency is now accessible in Lexis +® UK (subscription required). This issue includes the following articles: Fossil and the evolving boundaries of the English restructuring plan (2026) 1 CRI 3, by members of Freshfields’ London restructuring and insolvency team: Tony Conn (associate), Katharina Crinson (counsel), Sarah Margolis (associate), and Nick Fortune (partner) When is a ......
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Document review Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder Insurance and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Corporate insolvency processes Corporate resurrection—from liquidation to rescue (via administration)— Re Mannarest Ltd In Re Mannarest Ltd, the High Court exercised its power under paragraph 38 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ( IA 1986) to move a company from liquidation into administration to enable its eventual rescue. The proposal provided for payment of all creditor claims and liquidation costs—other than one postponed creditor—so the company could keep an asset intended for development and sale. So far as is known, this is the first reported decision on IA 1986, Sch B1, para 38. See News...
See Practice Notes: Tracker of Part VII transfer schemes hearing dates 2026: This Practice Note collates significant hearing dates, either proposed or shown in the High Court, Insolvency and Companies Court ( Chancery Division) daily cause list, commencing from 1......
Re Mannarest Ltd [2026] EWHC 326 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? So far as is currently known, this appears to be the first reported decision under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 38. The judgment emphasises the court’s (quite proper) prioritisation of creditors’ interests and questions the long-held orthodoxy that liquidation is the point of no return. It confirms that, when the circumstances align, liquidation is not necessarily terminal. IA 1986, Sch B1, para 38 now stands as a factor that must be firmly weighed in any rescue or restructuring exercise—particularly where, as in situations of this kind, preserving the company’s existence produces clear benefits and creditors’ interests are fully safeguarded. In such circumstances, the provision sits squarely among the considerations that inform rescue and restructuring strategies. What was the background?......
What is the background to the Act? In 2020 the Ministry of Justice tasked the Law Commission with examining the legal framework for crypto-tokens and other digital assets. That workstream, encompassing a review, consultation and a series of reports, resulted in recommendations for the Bill that became the Property ( Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. What does the Act do? Before the Property ( Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 commenced on 2 December 2025, English law recognised only two categories of personal property: ‘things in possession’: typically, tangible items such as a chattel; and ‘things in action’: generally, legal rights that are enforceable by court action. The Act’s aim and effect is to make clear that where there is a ‘thing’ (i.e. something not given a particular name) which does not fall within the established meanings of ‘thing in possession’ or ‘thing in action’, that alone does not...
Nilsson and another v Jones [2026] EWHC 319 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Debtor applicants and prospective trustees in bankruptcy should note: even if the statutory criteria for bankruptcy are satisfied, the court may refuse or annul a bankruptcy order where it would achieve nothing or treat creditors unfairly, especially (though not exclusively) in cross-border matters where principal assets sit outside the jurisdiction and cannot be realised the court’s discretion applies equally where an order was made by the bankruptcy adjudicator under the administrative scheme, not only where the court itself made the order the judgment underlines the need for debtors, trustees in bankruptcy, and creditors to evaluate practical enforceability in cross-border contexts and to provide evidence that assets are capable of realisation for creditors’ benefit when seeking to show a different domicile, the party...
See Practice Note: The monitor of a moratorium under Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 For a general outline of the insolvency office-holder, refer to: Role, powers, duties and functions of an insolvency office-holder—overview......
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Financial institutions Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Corporate insolvency processes Addressing the issue—winding-up petitions and default registered offices ( DG Resources Ltd v HMRC) The High Court confirmed that serving a winding-up petition on a company using a Companies House default registered office—allocated under the Registered Office Address ( Rectification of register) Regulations 2024—will not amount to valid service unless the process in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Insolvency ( England and Wales) Rules 2016 ( IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, is followed precisely. Here, HMRC’s petition was not properly served in line with IR 2016. Although the underlying debt was not contested, the petition was struck out. The ruling clarifies how petitions must be served where a...
Wonop Ap S v Jagger (as joint administrator of FAI Realisations 2024 Ltd) and others [2026] EWHC 362 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of the case? The ramifications of the decision are substantial and are not limited to cases where, after a notice under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 84(1) has been filed, administrators are displaced and substituted by court order. The court’s analysis extends to a variety of steps capable of being taken in an administration by interested stakeholders under IA 1986, Sch B1, including, by way of example, the appointment of replacement administrators by directors under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 94. It similarly encompasses actions available to administrators themselves, such as issuing (but not yet obtaining) directions under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 63. Where any such step is taken and its intended outcome depends upon the...
Taylor v Crabb and Crabb; Crabb v (1) Crabb and (2) Taylor and Czerwinke as joint liquidators of Courtside Recycling Limited (in liquidation) [2025] EWHC 3512 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling underscores need to balance judgment creditors’ entitlements to execute on judgments they had secured with protections due to third parties caught by enforcement steps. Here, the court observed that the judgment creditor’s spouse, because enforcement was pursued against the couple’s joint matrimonial home, moved from financial security to a position where she was financially exposed to her husband’s creditors. The case illustrates the real-world consequences of routine enforcement for non-debtor family members in domestic property contexts......
Lawless v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade and others [2026] EWHC 48 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Although strictly obiter, the decision confirmed—in relation to an application under section 6 CDDA 1986 and to Part 8 CPR—that a party can seek specific disclosure at any point in the litigation. That remains the position even if the defendant has yet to serve any evidence in answer, and even if the court has not invoked its PD 57AD powers to direct extended disclosure in Part 8 proceedings. Accordingly, timing and the procedural posture offer no automatic barrier to such requests. However, a defendant contemplating such a course should make sure their putative defence is articulated with adequate clarity, because the relevance of any disclosure sought—be it specific or from a non‑party—will be assessed by reference to that pleaded case. The onus...
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
