Tag: Insolvency Act 1986

2026 Guide UK Winding‑up Petition Procedure

2026 Guide: UK Winding‑up Petition Procedure

When a creditor serves a winding‑up petition, the company faces immediate risk of frozen bank accounts, compulsory liquidation and director investigation. This 2026 guide explains the UK winding‑up petition procedure step‑by‑step, from petition issue and London Gazette advertisement through to court hearings, potential rescue strategies and the consequences of a winding‑up order for directors and stakeholders.

Sections 235 and 236 Insolvency Act 1986: Directors’ Duties to Co-operate with Liquidators

Sections 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 impose powerful duties on company directors, officers, employees, and even third parties to co-operate with insolvency office-holders such as liquidators and administrators. Failure to assist properly during liquidation, administration, or bankruptcy can result in personal sanctions, court orders, fines, and even director disqualification.

Manolete Case Study: Director Liable for Misapplied Company Funds (Transactions at Undervalue & Preferences)

The High Court ordered Mr Steven Bell to repay substantial sums after causing BSS LED [R&D] Limited to enter into transactions at an undervalue and make preferential payments to connected companies, in breach of directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act 1986.

Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth

Success: Defence of Manolete Director Repayment Claim

In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.

Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP High Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim

Manolete Case Study: Court Refuses Summary Judgment in £2m Escrow Breach Claim (Breach of Undertaking)

The High Court refused Sampson Coward LLP’s application for summary judgment in Manolete Partners Plc v Sampson Coward LLP [2023] EWHC 37 (Ch), allowing a £2 million claim concerning alleged mismanagement of escrow accounts during UK Property and Land Specialists Ltd’s insolvency to proceed. The ruling highlights the complexity of fiduciary breaches in escrow arrangements and confirms assignees’ rights to pursue breach of undertaking claims under the Insolvency Act 1986.

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.

Manolete Case Study: Court Rejects Escrow Defence in £2m Solicitor Breach Claim (Solicitor Undertakings in Insolvency Disputes)

The High Court refused a summary judgment application by Sampson Coward LLP, a Salisbury-based law firm, over its handling of £2 million in escrow funds, allegedly misapplied while acting for connected parties, following assignment of the claims to litigation funder Manolete Partners.

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.

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.