LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
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.
If you’re facing liquidator legal action backed by Manolete Partners (or other litigation funders), expert legal representation is essential. We specialise in defending clients against such claims. Our expert team provides strategic legal support to counter aggressive tactics and ensure the most optimal outcome is achieved by you in your case.
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.
Funding Circle personal guarantees are under legal scrutiny, with a High Court case questioning their enforceability. Many business owners face enforcement actions following loan transfers to Azzurro Associates. This article explores the implications, risks, and potential legal defences available to guarantors.
In Purkiss v Kennedy, the High Court rejected a liquidator’s attempt to recover unpaid PAYE and NICs from Ethos Solutions Ltd’s failed tax avoidance scheme. The court found no fraudulent intent to evade HMRC under Insolvency Act 1986, Section 423. This case highlights HMRC’s challenges in tax recovery via insolvency law and the need to prove intent.
In Manolete Partners PLC v White, the Court of Appeal ruled that a pro bono costs order under Section 194 LSA 2007 for £85,000 payable to the Access to Justice Foundation (AJF) was unconditional and could not be set off against the pro bono party’s outstanding judgment debt, reinforcing the distinct legislative purposes of the provision.
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.
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 Respondent to an application to set aside a statutory demand must bear the costs of the application, even if they withdrew the demand shortly after the application was filed.