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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
This is the first instalment in a series of News Analyses, each concentrating on one of the principal changes within ERA 2025. The measures are arranged by the date of implementation (or anticipated implementation). Employment Rights Act 2025 (pdf) The Employment Rights Act 2025 overview factsheet, issued on 18 December 2025, confirms that: ERA 2025 will be rolled out in phases over a two‑year period common commencement dates (6 April and 1 October) will be used to bring the majority of regulations made using ERA 2025 powers into force the government remains committed to the timelines set out in the Implementing the Employment Rights Bill Roadmap, published on 1 July 2025 Review of extent of right to time off for public duties Provisions: section 19 Main changes: Requires the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the passing of ERA 2025 (ie before 18 December 2026), to review the...
New Practice Note: Forms available in Lexis+ UK Restructuring & Insolvency Consult the Practice Note: Forms provided in Lexis+ UK Restructuring & Insolvency. For a summary of R& I induction materials, refer to: R& I induction materials—overview......
Many third-party litigation funding agreements ( LFAs) were left unenforceable after Britain’s top court categorised them as damages-based agreements in 2023. LFAs are barred from use in opt-out collective actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT), a forum that has seen rising popularity over the past decade. The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) has now said it will adopt Civil Justice Council ( CJC) recommendations to undo the effects of the PACCAR decision, following its review of the litigation funding market. The announcement characterised the PACCAR outcome as restricting claimants’ access to third-party finance, leading to fewer collective proceedings being issued in the CAT. According to the government, the proposed steps will restore certainty to the litigation funding arena in the wake of PACCAR, bringing steadier conditions to the market overall, and ‘will mean......
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—18 December 2025 In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Property insolvency Tax and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Restructuring & Insolvency Highlights 2025/2026 Corporate insolvency processes Judgment Alert: Perhar v Freestone [2025] EWHC 3284 ( Ch) The Chancery Division refused an application contesting the administrators’ appointments. The applicant, a director of Sustainable Bathroom Company Ltd, had secured a trade finance facility with Synergy in Trade Ltd ( Synergy) to support a substantial order, granting a qualifying floating charge by debenture (the Debenture). Monies due under the order were mistakenly paid into the wrong account and were diverted to meet personal liabilities, instead of first repaying Synergy as required by the contract. After issuing...
Earlier this year, the decision in Macdonald Hotels v Bank of Scotland unsettled lenders and their advisers, with obiter observations intimating that, for the ‘face value’ test to be satisfied for a deed, the document, on its face, must make plain that all parties expressly intended it to operate as a deed, rather than only those executing it as a deed. That stance differs from common practice in certain finance instruments, notably intercreditor agreements, which frequently state that only specified parties execute and deliver them as deeds and, unlike security documents, are ordinarily styled as ‘agreements’ in many instances. The City of London Law Society ( CLLS) subsequently released a note expressing its view on the comments and on how to comply with the face value test, confirming that, in its opinion, there is a measure of flexibility in the ways the face value...
Consult Practice Note: Strategic considerations relating to the issue of protective proceedings. For an overview of claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder, see: Claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder—overview......
Section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 stops short of trespassers ( Maher & Another v Investalet Ltd) Maher and Another v Investalet Ltd [2025] EWHC 3133 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling serves as a firm reminder that IA 1986, s 234 functions as a procedural device, not a catch‑all shortcut to vacant possession. It authorises an office‑holder to require delivery up of “property of the company” found in third-party hands, but it does not enhance the company’s substantive entitlements. In practice, office‑holders must differentiate between two situations: Occupiers whose rights flow from the company (for example, as tenant or licensee) and who hold something that can accurately be characterised as the company’s property within their possession, custody or control; and Occupiers who are, in truth, trespassers with a possessory stance that is weaker than the...
R (on the application of L1T FM Holdings Ltd and Letterone Core Investments Sàrl) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Cabinet Office (formerly Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) [2025] EWCA Civ 1528 What were the practical implications of the case? In light of the recent Court of Appeal ruling in L1T FM Holdings, market participants should expect that compensation above the price realised on a forced sale is unlikely where a transaction is unwound following a divestment order under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 ( NSIA 2021). Where there is a ‘reasonable relationship of proportionality’ between the value of the asset and the compensation awarded, that suffices to meet Article 1 of Protocol 1 ( A1P1) of the European Convention of Human Rights ( ECHR), which protects property rights. This judgment sits alongside the small number of cases that...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—11 December 2025 In this issue: Key R& I law developments Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Financial institutions Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New Q& As Key R& I law developments Insolvency Service confirms new Chief Executive The Insolvency Service has named Duncan Beach as its incoming Chief Executive, starting on 5 January 2026. He succeeds interim Chief Executive, Alec Pybus, who stepped in following the departure of former Chief Executive, Dean Beale, in May 2025. See: LNB News 08/12/2025 10. Restructuring New Practice Notes: Part 26A restructuring plan deal debriefs The Lexis Nexis Restructuring & Insolvency practical guidance team has issued two fresh Practice Notes: ‘ Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Argo Blockchain plc’ and ‘ Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Fossil ( UK) Global...
Eisenberg and another v JNFX Ltd [2025] EWHC 3090 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling offers uncommon yet highly useful guidance on the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (the Regulations), SI 2021/716, a comparatively new framework. Four practical implications emerge. Creditor preference carries substantial weight in contested special administration appointments Directors of JNFX—and the FCA—backed one slate of proposed administrators, but the court appointed the creditor’s nominees, finding no conflict, regulatory impediment or capability concern sufficient to displace creditor choice. This brings the special administration regime into line with mainstream insolvency practice, where the majority creditors’ wishes usually prevail absent special circumstances. Advisers to directors, shareholders or the regulator should note their preferred nominations are not determinative. Insolvency ( Ground A) is enough The court concluded Ground A—an inability to pay debts—was met because JNFX failed to...
See Practice Notes: Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Argo Blockchain plc Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Fossil ( UK) Global Services Ltd For a summary of restructuring plans, see: Restructuring plan—overview......
Practice Note: Insurance alternatives to litigation funding For overview of the financing of insolvency litigation and investigations, refer to: Funding of insolvency litigation and investigations—overview......
Special resolution regime for central counterparties Consult Practice Note: Special resolution regime for central counterparties. For a summary of the special resolution......
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—4 December 2025 In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Financial institutions Tax and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New content Corporate insolvency processes Judgment Alert: Blue Rock Capital Ltd v Miride Management Ltd [2025] EWHC 3126 ( Ch) The Chancery Division upheld the Applicant’s bid for an injunction, restraining the Respondent from issuing a winding-up petition. The dispute arose from a £53,876 liability said to be unpaid rent under a company let agreement. The Applicant maintained that oral arrangements existed which either excused the rent altogether or provided that the Respondent’s director would meet the sums via his own company, to set off personal liabilities he owed to the Applicant’s director. The court decided the...
See Flowcharts: Extortionate credit transactions under section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart Extortionate credit transactions under section 343 of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart For a concise outline of claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder, refer to: Claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder—overview......
South Square Digest In this issue, David Alexander KC and the Ogier BVI team examine how negative declaratory relief can be deployed to terminate a long-running threat once and for all of......
See Precedents: Application notice by an office-holder to set the basis of their remuneration Witness statement supporting an application by an office-holder to set the basis of their remuneration Draft order concerning an application by an office-holder to set the basis of their remuneration For an overview of an insolvency office-holder’s remuneration and fees, see: Remuneration and fees of an insolvency office-holder—overview......
Nilsson and another (as joint trustees in bankruptcy of Timothy Edward Jones) v Jones [2025] EWHC 2652 ( Ch) What was the background? The joint trustees in bankruptcy of Timothy Edward Jones sought to have his bankruptcy order set aside on the footing that it should not have been made at all. Mr Jones petitioned on 3 November 2021, but an adjudicator initially rejected the application on 22 November 2021, expressly holding that his COMI was outside this jurisdiction and that none of the other jurisdictional gateways applied. On 6 December 2021, Mr Jones requested a review and then produced additional material, including a Family Court ruling in 2018 fixing his domicile within this jurisdiction, a statement that he had been using a friend’s house in Esher as a base to see his children, and an Austrian residence document showing his Austrian address as a...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—27 November 2025 In this issue: Key R& I law developments Insolvency litigation Restructuring Directors and insolvency The office-holder Financial institutions R& I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New Q& As Key R& I law developments Budget 2025—key Restructuring & Insolvency announcements On 26 November 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, set out measures of note for restructuring and insolvency practitioners. Plans cover business rates changes, hiring extra Insolvency Service staff to combat abusive phoenixism and rogue directors, the creation of the Public Authorities Fraud Investigation and Enforcement Service, and adjustments to National Insurance Contributions. See: LNB News 26/11/2025 65. Council of the EU agrees directive harmonising insolvency law across member states Negotiators for the Council of the EU and the European Parliament have reached a provisional deal on a directive aligning insolvency frameworks across the EU. It...
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
