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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Restraining the presentation of winding-up petitions ( SKS Justa & Co Ltd v Justa Ltd) SKS Justa & Co Ltd and another company v Justa Ltd [2025] EWHC 2120 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Those practising in this area know that the presence of even a single genuine dispute on substantial grounds about a pivotal issue will usually make insolvency proceedings inappropriate, and underpins a successful bid to restrain the presentation or advertisement of a winding-up petition. That principle is widely understood and continues to anchor applications of this kind. This ruling is a timely reminder of how far the court may properly probe an applicant’s case to discern whether it is merely advancing the familiar ‘cloud of objections’ without real substance, or whether there is in truth a genuine dispute. The decision underscores the permissible scope of such...
In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Employees and insolvency Financial institutions R& I in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Corporate insolvency processes Challenging administrator appointments–improper purpose and Braganza duty ( Glint Pay Ltd v Baker and Rowley) The High Court assessed whether administrators were validly appointed following an out-of-court appointment by a secured creditor under paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ( IA 1986). The scenario was that: (i) the creditor had acquired the security and the associated debt with a deliberate aim of calling an event of default and then purchasing the borrowers’ business and assets from administration; and (ii) the companies were not in fact insolvent, with enforceability said to arise from their failure to provide information. The administrators sought reverse summary judgment and succeeded. The court held that the appointing creditor owed no...
Kicks and another v MLS- Multinational Logistics Services Ltd (a company incorporated in Malta) [2025] EWHC 1958 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling provides significant direction for practitioners advising and administering distribution plans under the 2021 Regulations, SI 716/2021, particularly where cross-border issues arise and safeguarded monies must be allocated despite a deficit. First, it emphasises the need for a meticulous reconciliation exercise to locate and classify relevant funds. Advisers should scrutinise every claim, especially when records are patchy or contradictory. Though labour-intensive, this step is essential to meet Objective 1 in reg 12.2 of the 2021 Regulations: returning the relevant funds as soon as reasonably practicable. Second, Mr Justice Mellor’s decision underlines that distribution plans must adhere strictly to the statutory scheme. Plans ought to set out clearly how claims are calculated, how any deficit is dealt with, and how late...
Challenging administrator appointments–improper purpose and Braganza duty ( Glint Pay Ltd & others v Baker and Rowley) Glint Pay Ltd and other companies v Baker and another [2025] EWHC 2166 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The first of the companies’ two grounds relied on the application of settled principles. However, the more consequential takeaways, of wider relevance, flow from the third of the companies’ three grounds. The court placed little weight on the secured creditor’s rationale for purchasing the debt/security—namely to locate and trigger an event of default so it could appoint administrators and then acquire the companies’ business at a reduced price. That wish to enable administrators to assume control of the companies’ assets, with that aim in mind, was not an improper purpose. Further, the court concluded that no Braganza duty is to be read into...
Re Waldorf Production UK Plc [2025] EWHC 2181 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? What is ‘fair’ to allocate to out of the money creditors? What constitutes a fair share for out of the money creditors? The court will no longer be persuaded that such creditors should receive only a de minimis portion of the restructuring benefits, a stance often adopted since the early plan in Re Virgin Active [2021] EWHC 1246 ( Ch). Following Re Thames Water, the proper exercise is to assess a fair and reasonable division of the restructuring gains by reference to the value contributed by each class of creditor, expressly including out of the money creditors... Negotiations with out of the money creditors The judge confirmed that Re Petrofac does not impose a judicial precondition to sanction requiring the company, in every case, to show reasonable efforts to reach a...
Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—4 September 2025 In this issue Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Restructuring Personal insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content Key R& I law developments DBT updates overseas entities register guidance on trust information access The Department for Business and Trade has refreshed its Register of Overseas Entities guidance to explain new routes for accessing trust information, in force from 31 August 2025. Under the Register of Overseas Entities ( Protection and Trusts) ( Amendment) Regulations 2025 ( SI 2025/231), people may seek formerly non-public trust details from Companies House, paying £55 per entity. A legitimate interest must be shown for requests covering multiple entities or those involving under‑18s. Companies House may set terms on how the data is used and can decline requests on...
The Insolvency Service Situated within the Department for Business and Trade, the Insolvency Service is tasked, among other things, with: overseeing bankruptcies and debt relief orders; managing company liquidations; investigating related financial misconduct and director misconduct; enforcing company and insolvency law across the UK. The transfer of functions from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in 2017 made the Insolvency Service a prosecuting authority in its own right. The Strategy underlines its role as a prosecuting agency, with a core focus on strengthening investigation and enforcement by intensifying enforcement of the Companies Act, and building the capacity and capability to investigate and take action against companies and directors......
New Practice Note— R& I tracker—legislative and regulatory developments See Practice Note: R& I tracker—legislative and regulatory developments. For a summary of current issues and legal reforms, consult: Current issues and legal reforms for restructuring and insolvency professionals—overview......
Al Rostamani and others v El Haddad [2025] EWHC 2000 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Mixed motives and abuse of process The ruling confirms that bankruptcy petitions are not undermined by mixed intentions, so long as at least one objective is lawful. In this case, using collective enforcement to obtain payment and appointing an independent trustee to probe the debtor’s assertions were legitimate aims, even if the petitioners could also gain an advantage as defendants elsewhere. Creditors can therefore take comfort that tactical benefits in related litigation do not taint an otherwise proper petition. The Shepherd principle remains authoritative—having a trustee impartially evaluate questionable litigation claims amounts to the estate’s ‘proper administration’. ‘ Turner principle’ and statutory demand strategy The court reiterated it need not rehear points already raised and dismissed on an earlier application to set aside a statutory demand;...
Kington S.À. R. L. and others v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd and the Members of An Ad Hoc Group of Class A Creditors [2025] EWCA Civ 1003 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision delivers essential guidance for (a) companies aiming to obtain the court’s sanction of a Part 26A Plan; and (b) creditors and/or other individuals who intend to advance objections at first instance and/or on appeal in these proceedings. From the judgment, the following points can be distilled: At the appellate stage in cases concerning the sanction of Part 26A Plans, courts are likely to apply the ‘ General Costs Rule’ under CPR 44.2(2)(a), namely that the losing party will be responsible for the costs of the successful party......
BTI 2014 LLC and another v O' Connell and others [2025] EWHC 2115 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? When asked to remove administrators, the court faces the difficult exercise of weighing, on the one side, the disruption and consequences of substitution for the overall running of the administration and, on the other, the harm to the estate if a plainly unsuitable office-holder is left in post. To prevent opportunistic challenges by unhappy creditors, authorities have established a stringent threshold for what amounts to good or sufficient cause to justify removal. This judgment represents an uncommon instance where that demanding standard was met... The ruling highlights the centrality of objectivity, professionalism and neutrality in administering an estate. Any actual or perceived conflicts of interest must be revealed immediately once identified and, if they materialise, handled in a proactive, timely and...
What are the practical implications of this case? There are three areas of broader relevance, each connected to one of the five tests for issuing a CN under Pe A 2004, s 38 (outlined below): As to the ‘material detriment test’, where (as here) the scheme remains in operation and the employer continues to trade and support it, it may seem challenging to show that a step has adversely affected the likelihood of the scheme delivering promised benefits. Surely any negative funding effect could be rectified by future employer contributions, enabling benefits to be paid? The UT held otherwise, stating the test involves qualitative as well as quantitative evaluation, and observing that the cash drawn from the employer’s finance facility equated to about one-third of its total net assets at the time. That, together with the scheme’s significant deficit, meant the act ‘greatly...
In this issue: Key R& I law developments Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals Key R& I law developments Companies House announces Web Filing account access to move to GOV. UK One Login from 13 October 2025 Companies House confirms that from 13 October 2025, access to Web Filing will require GOV. UK One Login. Existing Web Filing accounts must be linked to One Login, and each account can connect to only one Login. Where access is currently shared, every user will need their own GOV. UK One Login set up with a distinct email address. The platform offers stronger protection via two-factor authentication and will ultimately replace all other GOV. UK sign-in routes, including Government Gateway. To prepare, users should ensure their email details are current and create their GOV. UK...
Saipem Sp A v Petrofac Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 821 As only the third appellate ruling under the Companies Act 2006, Part 26A, on restructuring plans, this Court of Appeal case offers material direction for practitioners. Patrick Schumann, partner; Jonathan Swil, partner; and Ben Gray, trainee, all at King & Spalding International LLP, examine the far‑reaching consequences of this seminal ruling for restructuring law, particularly the standards of fairness in corporate reorganisations and how courts will assess future plans. The court reiterates that the core function of the cross‑class cramdown is to neutralise an unwarranted veto by hold‑out creditors; it is not a mechanism for supportive creditors to capture an inequitable portion of the restructuring upside. Petrofac, a worldwide oilfield services group employing over 8,000 people, operates via more than 100 entities in 30 jurisdictions. Before proposing the plans, it had come under...
How is the Insolvency Service changing? Dave Magrath, the Insolvency Service’s director of investigation and enforcement services, is guiding the agency into an expanded role set out in its new strategy to intensify investigations and enforcement. The plan features the hiring of 250 staff to support the Insolvency Service’s widening remit. That remit now reaches into prosecuting a broader array of economic crime offences against both individuals and companies. This expansion, revealed in July 2025, follows the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which introduced over 100 additional offences the service can prosecute under the Companies Act 2006. The agency has also received extra funding to shoulder greater responsibilities. In 2024, the Insolvency Service has helped secure convictions for 77 individuals, disqualified around 1,000 directors, and wound up 41 companies. The government has recently transferred enforcement of coronavirus ( COVID-19) loan scheme cases to the...
Hopcraft and another ( Respondents) v Close Brothers Ltd ( Appellant); Johnson ( Respondent) v First Rand Bank Ltd ( London Branch) t/a Moto Novo Finance ( Appellant); Wrench ( Respondent) v First Rand Bank Ltd ( London Branch) t/a Moto Novo Finance ( Appellant) [2025] UKSC 33 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s ruling which had, by holding that motor retailers who arranged finance owed fiduciary obligations to their customers, significantly jolted the motor finance market and carried broader consequences for seller-led credit broking in other sectors and contexts within commerce, and for analogous brokerage arrangements. It likewise rejected both the Court of Appeal’s positions, and conclusions, in Wood v Commercial First Business Ltd [2022] Ch 123, namely that bribery is made out where the payee had a part in the...
Cohen and another v Co- Operative Group Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1892 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling brings together, in one place, the key rules governing changes to particulars of claim, confirming there is nothing unique about insolvency contexts: the Civil Procedure Rules and the established authorities on amendment continue to govern. It reiterates that no bespoke regime applies in insolvency matters, so the CPR and authority on amendments must be followed. It surveys the guidance on amendments made after expiry of limitation, the court’s broad discretion, how that discretion applies to late and very late amendments, and the matters the court should weigh when exercising that discretion generally. Practitioners dealing with any amendment bid—whether inside insolvency processes or in ordinary litigation—will find the decision an instructive point of reference. Crucially, the court underlined the...
( Sayers and another v Dixon and another [2025] EWHC 1886 ( Ch)) What are the practical implications of this case? Mr Dixon created the Do Ts without any particular creditor in view. It was only six years later that HMRC issued a bankruptcy petition seeking £627,302 for unpaid self-assessment tax, penalties and surcharges; at the time of execution, HMRC was not within his contemplation. Following his bankruptcy in August 2017, he attempted to rely on the Do Ts, asserting that he had shed all assets and income; that everything received since September 2010 was his wife’s or sums loaned by her; and that he had no means. The long interval between the Do Ts and his bankruptcy did not assist him. The judgment demonstrates that IA 1986, s 423 can, in principle, be used to attack transactions concluded many years earlier if the...
Bridging Finance Inc (acting by its receiver/manager Pricewaterhouse Coopers Inc) v Lyons [2025] EWHC 1694 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Lyons offers clear direction on the meaning of ‘carrying on business in England and Wales’ when seeking to establish jurisdiction for a bankruptcy petition. In particular, it confirms that: you must be able to distinctly pinpoint activities undertaken by the debtor in their personal capacity, as opposed to those carried out in a corporate capacity (as in Re Brauch ( A Debtor) Ex parte Britannic Securities & Investments Ltd [1978] Ch 316) (para [50] of Lyons)......
See: Transactions at an undervalue under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart. Please refer to the Insolvency Act 1986 section 238 flowchart on undervalue transactions......
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
