LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
English law Unfair Prejudice Petitions offer a remedy for minority shareholders facing oppression by the majority within a company. Where the prospect of winding-up proves undesirable, section 994(1) of the Companies Act 2006 provides an alternative avenue for seeking redress. At LEXLAW, our expert company law team specialises in navigating the complexities of shareholder disputes and unfair prejudice claims.
Fixed charge receivership serves as a way for creditors in England & Wales to recover debts by seizing assets secured by fixed charges. It carries serious legal implications for property rights and debtor protections. The practice is rooted in the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Insolvency Act 1986, allowing creditors to appoint receivers to manage or sell assets in default. Debtors have avenues to dispute receivership, via specialist insolvency law advice.
UK financial institutions have been selling interest rate swaps and fixed-rate loans without fully disclosing the risks and contingent liabilities involved, leading to substantial liabilities for customers. Lexlaw, a law firm specialising in hidden derivatives litigation, advises on legal action for SMEs and individuals affected by mis-selling. They guide clients through obtaining redress, often achieving out-of-court settlements with banks and insurers eager to avoid precedent-setting judgments. Lexlaw provides a step-by-step guide for those suspecting they’ve been mis-sold financial products, encouraging prompt legal advice to meet claim deadlines.
In a significant shift, the Court of Appeal determined that unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 have a 12-year statutory limitation period, reversing previous beliefs and affecting future legal approaches to such claims. This ruling, THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 158, changes the legal landscape for minority shareholder disputes, requiring a reevaluation of existing strategies and the potential for earlier claims.
The High Court, in its decision on Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm), clarified the application of force majeure and the “ownership and control” test under UK sanctions law. It emphasized that significant difficulty, nearly impossible to overcome, is necessary to invoke force majeure for debt obligations. The ruling further established stringent criteria for proving “control” in relation to sanctioned entities, highlighting the necessity for actual influence over business decisions, rather than theoretical possibilities, to satisfy this condition. This decision provides a clearer framework for businesses handling contracts under these terms.
HMRC have been using Horizon Data to raise tax assessments and tax penalties against innocent sub-postmasters. In one such case only after a six year battle when HMRC faced paying costs did they decide to withdraw their tax demands. Even now they refuse to recognise their misconduct should be punished by them paying indemnity costs and have threatened the sub-postmaster victim with a costs order simply for daring to ask for his full costs.
In this case our lawyers defeated “London Credit”; a bridging lender that demanded circa £160,000.00 GBP. We applied to the High Court and successfully set aside a default judgment then forced the withdrawal of a statutory demand, and 3 interim charging orders. We then forced the other side to settle – for a fraction of the sum demanded.
The ruling in Glaser KC & Miller v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) affects individuals who have instructed direct access barristers and had to pay fixed fees even if a trial did not go ahead. The judge’s verdict rendered this inherently unfair term effectively null and void with no quantum meruit fallback.
Unless Orders are judicial directives that can force a non-compliant party to comply with a previous court order. Specifically, in the context of outstanding costs orders, Unless Orders can help ensure financial obligations are paid out.
Deputy Costs Judge Joseph in the case of Coram v D R Dunthorn & Son Ltd [2023] EWHC 731 (SCCO) affirmed that the costs of instructing leading counsel for a three-day trial were not recoverable as they were deemed unreasonable and disproportionate for a case with a maximum value of £115,000 (settled for £75,000).