Category: Case Study | Page 2 | LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers

The First-tier Tribunal ruled in favour of Hastings Insurance Services Ltd, allowing VAT recovery for services to a Gibraltar-based insurer. Learn what this judgment means for cross-border VAT claims.

Landmark Tax Tribunal Win for VAT Recovery Rights: Hastings Insurance Services v HMRC

The Tribunal in Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC confirmed that UK intermediaries can recover VAT on services provided to overseas insurers. This decision challenges HMRC’s interpretation of VAT law and sets a strong precedent for cross-border transactions.

Post date 22 August 2025
Post author By Qasim Mehmood
Post categories In Administrative Law, Case Study, Costs, Financial Services Litigation, Financial Services Tribunal, First Tier Tax Tribunal, HMRC, Litigation, Tax Law, Taxation
Tags Article 169(c), Article 169(c) VAT directive, Brexit, Brexit VAT rules, cross-border insurance services, cross-border VAT, cross-border VAT UK, EU VAT Directive, EU VAT post-Brexit, Finance Act 2023 VAT amendments, First Tier Tax Tribunal, Gibraltar insurer VAT, Hastings Insurance, Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v HMRC, Hastings Insurance VAT case, historic VAT claims UK, HMRC, HMRC VAT dispute, input vat, insurance intermediaries, insurance intermediary tax claims, insurance intermediary VAT, offshore looping regulations, Specified Supplies Order, Specified Supplies Order 2019, Tax Litigation, UK insurance sector VAT, UK retained EU law VAT, UK tax tribunal VAT decision, UK VAT recovery, VAT, VAT compliance insurance intermediaries, VAT reclaim for intermediaries, vat recovery, VAT tribunal decision

manolete partners insolvency winding up petition bankruptcy solicitor barrister lawyer london high court

Manolete Case Study: Director Ordered to Repay Preferential Payment (s.239 Insolvency Act 1986)

The High Court ordered former director Simon Thacker to repay £33,542.20 after benefiting from the extinguishing of his director’s loan account, which was ruled a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986. In contrast, claims against fellow director David Coleman were dismissed after he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of desire to prefer, despite having received £15,000 shortly before insolvency.

Post date 20 August 2025
Post author By Hasanat Akbar
Post categories In Case Study, Director's Duties, Directors Disqualification, High Court, HMCTS, Insolvency, Insolvency Litigation, Litigation, Manolete
Tags Directors’ Duties, Insolvency Act 1986, Insolvency Litigation, liquidation disputes, Manolete case study, Manolete claims, Manolete Partners, preference claim, s.239 Insolvency Act

McGuinness & Anor v Goldentree Financial Services PLC & Anor [2025] EWHC 870 (Ch)

Case Study: Commercial Lender Defeats Consumer Credit Claim (McGuiness v Goldentree 2025)

McGuinness v Goldentree [2025] EWHC 870 (Ch) clarifies investment property loan exemptions under Article 61A FSMA 2000. The High Court struck out regulatory challenges to commercial development finance, confirming contemporaneous evidence establishes business purposes. The judgment reinforces that former directors lack litigation authority during administration without administrator consent. This decision protects legitimate commercial lending from spurious consumer credit challenges whilst emphasising robust documentation practices for development finance practitioners.

Post date 8 August 2025
Post author By Hamza Chaudhry
Post categories In Breach of Contract, Bridging, Bridging Finance, Business and Property Courts, Case Law, Case Study, Commericial Contracts, Contract, Contractual Dispute, Contractual duties, Director's Duties, Property Litigation
Tags Commercial Lending Challenges, Financial Services, Investment Property Development Finance, Investment Property Loan Exemption, Litigation, Regulated Mortgage Contract

Legal professionals resolving a financial dispute in a modern office representing restitution and unjust enrichment claims in English commercial law.

Restitution & Unjust Enrichment in English Law: Key Principles, Claims and Remedies

Unjust enrichment is a powerful remedy in English law allowing recovery where one party is enriched at another’s expense without legal justification. This guide by LEXLAW Solicitors explains how restitution claims arise in commercial, financial, and contractual disputes. We outline key legal principles, real-world examples, and common defences helping you understand your rights and take action.

Manolete Case Study: Director Ordered to Repay £1.43m for Unauthorised Expenditure (Director’s Duties & Insolvency Act Breaches)

The High Court ordered Dr Amir Matta, director of Saint George Investment Holdings Ltd, to repay £1.43 million after he misapplied company funds for personal expenses, breaching his statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006 and authorising unsubstantiated payments to connected parties during a period of financial distress.

Post date 1 August 2025
Post author By Hasanat Akbar
Post categories In Administration, Case Law, Case Study, Chancery Division, Director's Duties, Directors Disqualification, High Court, HMCTS, Insolvency, Insolvency Litigation, Litigation, Litigation Funding, Manolete
Tags companies act 2006, Defending Manolete Claims, Directors Duties, Directors’ Duties Claims, Insolvency, Insolvency Act 1986, Insolvency Law, lexlaw, LexLaw case studies, Litigation, Manolete, Manolete Case Studies

Braganza Duty in UK Banking Litigation – Procedural Fairness in Focus.

The Braganza Duty in Banking Litigation (Implied Contractual Term to Exercise Discretion Fairly)

The High Court considered the application of the Braganza duty in a banking litigation context, ruling that the bank breached its procedural fairness obligations when exercising discretionary powers, reinforcing directors’ and financial institutions’ duties under UK law.

High Court Rules on £8 Million Spread Betting Claim: FSMA & FCA COBS Rules Compliance Examined

Real Estate Tycoon, Tchenguiz challenged the £6.5 million claim by IG Index Limited over spread-betting debt but court upheld the claimant’s position. The ruling implicates critical precedent for financial instruments, spread betting, statutory interpretation of financial regulations.

Post date 9 July 2025
Post author By Muhammad Awais Bahadur
Post categories In Breach of Contract, Case Study, Civil Litigation, Contractual duties, FCA, Financial Services Litigation, High Court, Litigation
Tags Business Advice, Civil Litigation, FCA, fca dispute resolution, FCA Review, Financial Conduct Authority, Financial Regulation, Financial Services, Financial Services Litigation, High Court litigation, Investment Advice, Litigation, UK Financial Law

"High Court mandates £0.92m repayment by director for breaching insolvency duties, clarifying creditor priority and litigation funders' rights in director misconduct cases."

Manolete Case Study: Court orders Director to Repay £0.92m (Director’s Insolvency Duty Breach)

Manolete pusured a Direcors Claim against Director Norman Freed. The High Court ordered the director to repay £918,590 for funnelling monies to linked firms pre-insolvency, breaching duties under the Companies Act 2006 and Insolvency Act 1986.

Post date 7 May 2025
Post author By LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Post categories In Case Law, Case Study, Director's Duties, Directors Disqualification, High Court, Insolvency, Litigation
Tags asset protection solicitors, circularity defence, creditor prioritisation, director liability, Freed v Manolete, Insolvency, Insolvency Act 1986, Litigation, litigation funding risks, Manolete Partners claims, wrongful trading defence

WhatsApp digital messages can form legally binding contracts in English law.

Are WhatsApp Agreements Valid Contracts? High Court Rules in Jaevee Homes Limited v Fincham

Legally binding contracts in UK contract law can be made via WhatsApp, email, & text messages. The Jaevee Homes v Fincham High Court ruling confirms digital agreements require offer, acceptance, consideration, & intention (based on an objective test). Understand contract formation via electronic communication & risks of informal digital contracts in English law.

insolvency bankruptcy petition lawyer debt defence solicitor

Case Study: Bankruptcy Order Annulment Victory Following HMRC’s Defective Service

We successfully annulled a bankruptcy order against our client after HMRC failed to properly serve notice of a key hearing. Mr. Gaster proved this procedural error denied him the chance to present evidence of his ability to pay. The court’s judgment emphasized due process under Rule 10.23 of the Insolvency Rules 2016, exposing flaws in HMRC’s conduct and evidence on the adjournment notice.