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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Stephens and another (as Joint Special Adminstrators of Dolfin Financial ( UK) Ltd) v Firestone Financial Assets Ltd and another company [2026] EWHC 41 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment is another notable sequel to Denaxe Ltd v Cooper [2023] EWCA Civ 752, and it furnishes practical guidance for office-holders contemplating court approval of how they deploy their discretion. Before making such an application, administrators should: assess whether approval or a Benjamin order is the better route, and if an approval would in reality provide any meaningful protection; ensure the application targets a specific, pivotal issue where assistance is genuinely needed, rather than attempting to secure a broad, catch‑all shield; consider whether existing rules or regulatory frameworks already articulate a solution or pathway for resolving the point in dispute; confirm that the evidential record before the court is adequate to enable a...
Aerovías Del Continente Americano S. A. and other companies v Versilia Solutions Ltd (in provisional liquidation) (acting by Michael Leeds and Kristina Kicks as Joint Provisional Liquidators) [2026] EWHC 282 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling underlines that where provisional liquidators anticipate, or can reasonably foresee, taking particular actions, they must check that the appointing order grants the necessary authority to act. Here, the office-holders applied for a declaration confirming that a disposal of the company’s assets they had carried out fell within their remit; alternatively, they asked the court to approve the transaction after the event. Although the court concluded, interpreting the appointment order, that they did possess authority to complete the sale, it stressed that if a sale (or any comparable measure) might be necessary, the order should contain a clear, specific power enabling it. If such...
Background In THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company ( Jersey) Ltd [2026] UKSC 6, the majority judgment of Lord Hodge and Lord Richards, with whom Lord Briggs and Lord Lloyd- Jones concurred, held that CA 2006, ss 994–996 do not impose substantive duties but constitute a remedial jurisdiction addressing unfair prejudice, distinct from proceedings to enforce statutory obligations. Lord Burrows dissented, maintaining that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was correct. The dispute originated with Zedra Trust Company ( Jersey) Ltd’s petition against THG Plc after it was omitted from a bonus share issue in July 2016. The Court of Appeal had refused permission to amend the petition on the basis that the claim was time‑barred by a six‑year limitation period. The Supreme Court’s ruling permits Zedra’s amendment and reverses the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that monetary relief sought under CA 2006, s 994 is...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—19 February 2026 In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency The office-holder Property insolvency R& I in Scotland Industry/sector guides for R& I lawyers Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for January 2026 The Insolvency Service has released its January 2026 monthly statistics covering corporate and individual insolvencies in England and Wales. The figures record 1,744 company insolvencies—4% above December 2025, yet 14% lower than January 2025. For individuals, there were 10,843 insolvencies in January 2026, a rise of 12% on January 2025, but 20% beneath December 2025. See: LNB News 17/02/2026 21. Corporate insolvency...
Argo Blockchain Plc, Re [2025] EWHC 3395 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? First, the ruling delineates the proper approach to class meetings within restructuring plan proceedings. In 2024, the Scottish Outer House of the Court of Session determined that a class meeting could be valid with only a single attendee, provided that attendee held sufficient proxies to make the meeting quorate on the footing that each proxy was treated as a person present (see Re Dobbies Garden Centres Ltd [2024] CSOH 111). Mr Justice Hildyard rejected that position, concluding that where a class contains more than one creditor, no valid meeting can occur unless at least two persons are in attendance. The judgment also includes helpful observations on how the court’s approach may require adjustment when turnout at class meetings is low and participation is notably limited. Secondly, the court...
Mc Gann v Eldonian Community Trust Ltd [2025] EWHC 3103 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling distils several concrete lessons for those dealing with charity governance, disputed liabilities, and the deployment of winding-up petitions. To begin with, the court stressed that a creditor’s locus is tightly policed: a petitioner must evidence a debt that is either unchallenged or incapable of sensible dispute. If governance defects, dubious paperwork, or uncertainties about authority surround the claim, the court will readily conclude there is a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. That stance makes clear winding-up petition is not a lever for pressure where the liability is itself arguable. Next, the judgment spotlights the perils of informal or flawed governance in companies limited by guarantee. Omitting AGMs, failing to keep accurate membership lists, or not appointing trustees lawfully can...
Webb and another (as joint liquidators of Eversholt Rail (365) Ltd (in liquidation)) v Eversholt Rail Ltd and another company [2026] EWHC 101 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? For office-holders, this decision serves as a prompt to ensure that applications under IA 1986, ss 235 and 236: are precisely targeted; and set out why the office-holder reasonably needs each category of information or documents. It is insufficient, on its own, that the office-holder seeks to rebuild the company’s knowledge. That may well be the objective in a given matter, but the applicant must also establish that there is a need for the information and that the need is reasonable. As the judge observed, unless the liquidators could demonstrate that they reasonably required all the information and documents requested, it was incumbent upon them to pinpoint the portion that was...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—5 February 2026 In this issue Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Insolvency litigation Property insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts New content Corporate insolvency processes Administration appointment upheld despite service defects ( Perhar v Synergy) The High Court rejected an effort to nullify, or terminate, an administrator’s appointment made by a trade finance lender using a qualifying floating charge. ICC Judge Prentis decided that, under paragraph 16 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ( IA 1986), the decisive point is whether the chargeholder’s contractual entitlement to enforce has arisen, not whether its enforcement actions were procedurally impeccable. Following SAW ( SW) 2010 Ltd v Wilson [2017] EWCA Civ 1001, the floating charge was enforceable given serious, continuing contractual/trust breaches and a secured debt that remained unpaid. Although the demand’s service under the debenture was...
Re Fossil ( UK) Global Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 3058 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision offers several practical pointers for practitioners working on creditor plans, particularly those featuring retail noteholders and debt governed by foreign law. The involvement of retail investors does not change the court’s analytical framework; however, it increases scrutiny of how clear and accessible creditor communications are. This, in turn, underscores the need for comprehensive, well‑explained statements and active engagement routes where retail creditors are a significant constituency. The court also confirmed that differing commercial interests—for instance, the chance to join the ‘ New‑ Money’ injection—do not, of themselves, fracture a class. The determinative issue is shared legal rights and that any ‘ New‑ Money’ participation is genuinely open to all. Robust market testing of the ‘ New‑ Money’ terms was central in...
James Hall v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 124 ( TC) H asked the FTT to revoke case management directions that obliged him to file his witness evidence and skeleton arguments in advance of HMRC. He contended that a JSLN amounts to a criminal charge, thereby triggering the presumption of innocence, with the consequence that HMRC carries the evidential burden and ought to serve first. The FTT accepted that submission and varied the directions accordingly (paras [75], [78]). The tribunal’s finding that JSLNs are a criminal charge, and thus the presumption applies, derived from applying the Bendenoun ( Application 12547/86) criteria to assess their character and gravity. In doing so, it held that: JSLNs have broad reach across the populace and are comparable to VAT penalties—each operates upon a community within scope of the rule, regardless of that group’s size (para [71]); taken as a scheme, JSLNs are...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Daily and weekly news alerts New content Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes December 2025 enforcement outcomes management information The Insolvency Service has refreshed its enforcement outcomes management information tables for December 2025. The figures show 80 director disqualifications and no bankruptcy or debt relief restrictions. See: LNB News 27/01/2026 7. Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ( Commencement No 7) Regulations 2026 SI 2026/57 These Regulations commence provisions of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 that remove the facility for companies to keep member details on the central register, with a transitional provision for companies that currently do so. They took effect on 26 January 2026. See: LNB News 26/01/2026 14. Corporate insolvency...
Re Lehman Brothers International ( Europe) and others [2025] EWHC 2871 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision confirms that the routes for bringing a company out of administration extend beyond the two statutory paths in IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 83 (creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and 84 (dissolution). Those provisions do not preclude a members’ voluntary liquidation ( MVL), and accordingly an MVL remains available where appropriate. Here, an MVL was apt: every creditor had been satisfied, there was an asset surplus, the sole member supported the MVL resolution, and moving to MVL would be more straightforward and cost‑effective than leaving the company in administration. Practitioners should, in light of this, consider whether comparable features are present in their matters and whether an MVL is the more fitting way to conclude the...
Re Argo Blockchain Plc [2025] EWHC 2951 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Four practically significant points emerge. First, the court highlighted the contemporary approach to restructuring plans (post- Petrofac) at the convening stage. It is now settled that Plan companies must secure for participating creditors a fair allocation of any restructuring surplus, while also showing that creditors are no worse off than under the relevant alternative. To substantiate this, a dedicated Plan Benefits Report may become a routine feature; however, from a creditor standpoint, equivalent material set out in the Explanatory Statement (and, at a high level, the Practice Statement Letter) may well suffice. Second, the court’s handling of foreign law issues. A question arose as to whether noteholders possessed a right to definitise and thus qualified as creditors for the purposes of Part 26A. Resolving that issue depended upon...
Manolete Partners Plc v Howarth [2025] EWHC 2294 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment marks a significant victory for company directors and a sharp reminder to office‑holders and those pursuing claims on their behalf: contemporaneous records are paramount. The court condemned the failure to retain and produce meeting notes, emails and working papers, noting that gaps in the paper trail can justify adverse inferences. Insolvency practitioners should, therefore, keep meticulous files of the advice provided and the decisions taken. The court also affirmed that directors are entitled to place reliance on insolvency specialists’ guidance. Where a director behaves openly and follows the directions of a CVA supervisor, later accusations of preference or undervalue are harder to sustain. The evidential onus accordingly returns to the applicant, who must prove misconduct with cogent evidence. Further, the ruling indicates that...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Personal insolvency Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Financial institutions Daily and weekly news alerts New content Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service publishes monthly insolvency statistics for December 2025 The Insolvency Service has released its December 2025 monthly figures covering corporate and personal insolvencies across England and Wales. The figures record 1,671 corporate insolvencies—down 10% on November 2025 and 13% year-on-year (1,919 in December 2024). Personal insolvencies totalled 13,453 in December 2025, exceeding the November 2025 level. The Insolvency Service indicates this was influenced by delayed registration of individual voluntary arrangements ( IVAs) after a new case management system went live. See: LNB News 20/01/2026 55. Corporate insolvency processes Judgment Alert: Re PPE Medpro Ltd (in Administration) [2025] EWHC 3449 ( Ch) The Chancery Division...
In this issue: Directors and insolvency R& I in Scotland Insurance and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts New Q& As Directors and insolvency Judgment Alert: Lawlests v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2026] EWHC 48 ( Ch) The court refused applications seeking specific disclosure under CPR 31.12 and third-party disclosure under CPR 31.17. Mr Lawless, the applicant and the subject of proceedings under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, attempted to obtain all correspondence between the Secretary of State for Business and Trade ( So S) and the Joint Liquidators of three companies of which he had been a director. The court concluded the material requested was irrelevant to the issues he had to answer, namely whether sufficient company books and records had been kept and/or handed over. It determined that the substance of any...
Summary of provisions The Employment Rights Act 2025 ( Commencement No. 1 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/3 bring several measures into effect, although most operate as enabling powers that permit secondary legislation to be made. The outline below sets out the provisions to be implemented under the ERA 2025 ( Commencement No. 1 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regs 2026, SI 2026/3, and their position from 6 January 2026. Workers ( Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 repealed — ERA 2025, s 7 — Fully in force — January 2026 — SI 2026/3, reg 2(4) Exclusivity clauses in zero-hours arrangements banned — ERA 2025, s 8 — Fully in force — January 2026 — SI 2026/3, reg 2(8) Guaranteed hours for zero/low-hours workers — ERA 2025 ss.1, 6, Sch. 2 — Enabling only — January 2026 — SI...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Employees and insolvency Tax and insolvency Financial institutions R& I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Key R& I law developments Execution of multi-party deeds Macdonald Hotels v Bank of Scotland [2025] EWHC 32 ( Comm) unsettled financiers and their advisers earlier in 2025, at the time, causing notable concern across the market. The judge’s obiter remarks indicated that, to satisfy the ‘face value’ criterion for a deed, every party must state within the document that it is intended as a deed, rather than only those signing in deed form. In response, the City of London Law Society produced guidance setting out its view of the...
Re Argentex ( Conway v Plass and others) [2025] EWHC 3125 ( Ch), [2025] EWHC 3125 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? On the Expense Question, the decision offers clear direction on when administrators may create liabilities ranking as an expense of the administration while closing out a trading book. The court confirmed that simply taking no action does not generate an expense liability. As for close out, although it required Argentex to take an affirmative step under the contractual terms (an election to close out), that act did not give rise to an expense liability. Turning to the Termination Question, the judgment addresses a significant point of contractual interpretation in the context of foreign exchange contracts, namely the circumstances in which a provider of foreign exchange services may close out a position for ‘its own...
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
