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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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 developments Corporate insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Financial institutions R& I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Corporate Rescue and Insolvency ( October 2025) Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Key R& I developments Insolvency Service announces update on INSSight system rollout The Insolvency Service confirms that deployment of its new internal case management platform, INSSight, will start in late October 2025 and continue into early November 2025. INSSight will support Official Receiver Services and Estate Accounts, including banking activities, and will run alongside the existing ISCIS Online service, which will remain available during transition. While the rollout is underway, users may face delays processing cheque or BACS payment requests, posting receipts to the Insolvency Service Account ( ISA), and undertaking bulk case transfers. The Individual Insolvency Register will stay accessible, although there will be a short pause on registering new Individual Voluntary...
Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Find the newest issue of Corporate Rescue and Insolvency ( October 2025) now available via Lexis +® UK (subscription required)......
Re Standard Profil Automotive Gmb H [2025] EWHC 2313 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment reinforces the position in Re DTEK Energy [2022] 1 BCLC 260, confirming that a cross-border scheme does not require absolute certainty of international recognition before the English court will approve it. Rather, there must be a genuine prospect or likelihood that recognition will be obtained in the relevant jurisdictions, and the court will refuse sanction only where it concludes the exercise would be wholly futile because international effectiveness is absent. The court further stated that, where the underlying debt documentation is governed by English law and includes an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts, international recognition can reasonably be anticipated pursuant to the Hague Convention and/or the Hague Judgments Convention, despite the recent preliminary ruling of the Regional Court of...
Koza Altin İşletmeleri AŞ v Koza Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 2304 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Practitioners know that petitions to wind up on ‘just and equitable’ grounds are a crude mechanism for resolving stalemates and other shareholder disputes, especially when the impasse is ‘self‑inflicted’ through poor planning by the shareholders when setting the articles and/or omitting a robust (or any) shareholders’ agreement. Following Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd, the court may step in where there is a true deadlock, and that principle is not confined to quasi‑partnership companies. Even so, outcomes are unpredictable and such petitions remain very much a measure of last resort. This ruling underscores those themes, in the context of a long‑running dispute and its particular facts and background. A late undertaking from the director, given at the eleventh hour, was enough to defeat an...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—9 October 2025 In this issue: Key R& I developments Corporate insolvency processes Directors and insolvency International restructuring and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New Q& As Key R& I developments Government departments update ECCTA guidance on AML information sharing measures Guidance on information‑sharing measures under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act ( ECCTA) 2023 has been refreshed by the Home Office, HM Treasury, the Ministry of Justice, Companies House, the Serious Fraud Office and the Department for Business and Trade. Released on 3 October 2025, it explains how anti‑money laundering regulated firms ( AML regulated firms) can pass customer data either directly or via third‑party intermediaries to prevent, detect and investigate economic crime. It addresses the warning and request conditions for...
Nicholson (as joint liquidator of Frencheye ( Stratford) Ltd) v Masood and others [2025] EWHC 2314 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Insolvency practitioners ( IPs), whether acting as liquidators or in other capacities, frequently deploy wide-ranging investigative powers to assess potential claims. In doing so, they often identify materials and legal reasoning from earlier judgments, and positive outcomes in past cases can be highly advantageous. Not so here. The earlier judgment dealt with a subtly different issue, and the parties in that prior litigation could not reasonably have foreseen that it would determine a substantial personal claim subsequently brought against them. Those distinctions were enough to prevent the liquidator from relying on the earlier decision when attempting to strike out the defence. When weighing evidence and conclusions from previous proceedings, IPs (and other litigants) must interrogate two points...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—2 October 2025 In this issue: Restructuring Personal insolvency Property insolvency Insolvency litigation Directors and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New content Restructuring Re Madagascar Oil—‘ Cram across’ of a dissenting pari passu creditor after Petrofac This ruling addresses the first restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 ( CA 2006) for a finance creditor restructuring to receive sanction following the Court of Appeal’s seminal decision in Petrofac [2025] EWCA Civ 821. It featured a distinctive restructuring of a Mauritian company with a Malagasy subsidiary, and only two pari passu financial creditors—one in favour of the plan, and the other opposed. The Plan’s approval underlines that CA 2006, Part 26A continues to be a potent and versatile jurisdiction accessible to both English and...
See: Insolvency claims and sections 21 and 32 of the Limitation Act 1980. For a synopsis on claims by an insolvent estate or its office-holder, see: Claims by an insolvent estate or its insolvency office-holder—overview......
Re DSTBTD Ltd [2025] EWHC 2366 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision confirms that the Part 26A restructuring plan ( Plan) continues to be available to SMEs. It demonstrates that a Plan can be deployed instead of a CVA where HMRC approval to a CVA is improbable. Here, the Plan secured a reduction of HMRC’s Preferential claim to roughly 34.6% of the amount originally owed. Engaging with HMRC early maximises the prospects of consent and also evidences to the court that HMRC have had adequate time to assess the Plan if they refuse and are to be crammed down. Despite HMRC’s participation, a winding-up petition may still be issued and must be managed during the Plan process, since there is no automatic moratorium when proposing a Plan. What was the background? A bold and expensive growth strategy left the Company with...
Re Madagascar Oil Limited [2025] EWHC 2129 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Madagascar Oil is poised to carry notable consequences for restructuring practitioners and insolvency litigators. First, it stands as a rare yet effective instance of a ‘cram across’, where an approving class was employed to force a plan on a dissenting class of equal priority, demonstrating that cross‑class imposition can still succeed in appropriate circumstances. Only one other ‘cram across’ has been recorded: Re Sino‑ Ocean Group Holding Ltd [2025] EWHC 205 ( Ch). Although Sino‑ Ocean came before Petrofac, Madagascar Oil achieved a ‘cram across’ notwithstanding the significant constraints the Court of Appeal imposed on the cramdown jurisdiction. Second, the judgment shows that granting a dissenting creditor participation in future revenues, or alternative ‘synthetic equity’ within a plan, can evidence that the Plan...
Armstrong (as trustee in bankruptcy of Vanessa Temblett) v Temblett (bankrupt) and another [2025] EWHC 1649 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment offers several practical takeaways for practitioners. Foremost, it reinforces the potency of the statutory presumption in IA 1986, s 335A(3). The judge placed significant weight on that presumption when granting the relief sought. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, creditors’ interests are treated as prevailing over all other factors, even where any proceeds from bringing the application would be entirely absorbed by the trustee’s costs and expenses. Once the one-year bankruptcy period has elapsed, there is very limited scope for a bankrupt to avoid such an order being made by the court. The decision also illustrates how an uncooperative bankrupt can cause disproportionate costs and substantial delay in the realisation of assets. This is especially pertinent in the...
Refer to: Setting aside certain floating charges under section 245 of Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart...
Transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986–flowchart Refer to the flowchart for more information on transactions......
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation The office-holder Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Latest Q& A Corporate insolvency processes Restraining the presentation of winding-up petitions ( SKS Justa & Co Ltd v Justa Ltd) The dispute arose from the fall-out following the sale of an accountancy practice, with contention centred on whether, and to what extent, deferred consideration was payable. The respondent served statutory demands on the two buyers, who then put forward a flurry of disputes aimed at steering the quarrel away from the insolvency court and into a Part 7 claim. After a fiercely contested hearing on the applicants’ bid to restrain the respondent from presenting winding-up petitions, Deputy ICC Judge Arumugam took a common-sense approach to the...
See: Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart. For additional guidance regarding wrongful...
See: Misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart. View misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart......
Transactions at an undervalue under section 339 of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart. View...
See: Fraudulent trading claims under sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart. Refer to the flowchart on claims for fraudulent trading pursuant to sections 213 and 246ZA of the Insolvency Act 1986......
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
