Tag: Litigation

Only with court permission under CPR 36.10. You must prove a "change of circumstances" (e.g., new evidence), not just a change of mind. See our litigation guide.

Chinda v Cardiff: Rules on Withdrawing Accepted Part 36 Offers

Master Cook’s ruling in Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board EWHC 2696 (KB) refuses permission to withdraw an accepted Part 36 offer, stressing that a mere change of mind fails CPR 36.10’s “change of circumstances” test – even for vulnerable claimants. The court prioritised CPR Part 36 certainty.

CCjs debt recovery london litigation lawyer solicitor barrister CFA no win no fee dba limitation period

Creditor’s Guide to Enforcement of Unpaid & Old Court Judgment Debts in the UK (2025)

Contrary to common belief, unpaid High Court & County Court judgments (CCJs) do not always become unenforceable after six years. With proper legal procedures and court permission, creditors can successfully enforce judgment debts many years old.

Manolete Case Study: Directors Found Liable for Misfeasance and Dishonest Assistance (Breach of Insolvency Duties)

The High Court held that Ronojoy Nag was liable for misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty after diverting company assets during insolvency, while his wife Amanda Nag was found liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt, ordering both to account for misapplied funds.

Relief from Sanctions Applications / Civil Litigation / Expert London Litigation Lawyers / LEXLAW

When will the Court Grant Relief from Sanctions under CPR 3.9 (Civil Litigation)?

An application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 is available where a party has failed to comply with court deadlines or procedural rules. The court will apply the three-stage test from Denton v TH White Ltd, considering (1) the seriousness of the breach, (2) the reasons for the default, and (3) all the circumstances of the case. Relief must be sought promptly, as delay may undermine the application.

Manolete Case Study: Court Confirms Misfeasance Claims Procedure (Hybrid Insolvency Applications)

The High Court, per Chief ICC Judge Briggs, held that Manolete Partners could not advance misfeasance claims under section 212 Insolvency Act 1986 via an Insolvency Application, and instead had to pursue them under CPR Part 7, ordering payment of the full Part 7 issue fee despite procedural arguments about hybrid claims brought in insolvency proceedings.

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.

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.

Financial services, UK financial 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.