Who owns the cryptocurrency?
The High Court gives a powerful reminder that, even in seemingly informal business relationships, especially within the context of a private limited company, corporate governance
Not every encroachment amounts to “substantial interference”
The High Court has refused permission to appeal in a dispiriting boundary and right-of-way dispute, emphasising that minor encroachments on an easement may not constitute a
Subjective opinion is no longer valid to escape a breach of fiduciary duty
The High Court has recently delivered a significant judgement clarifying the stringent requirements of a director's duty to promote the success of the company in good faith,
Can voidable mortgages arise due to undue influence?
The Supreme Court decision represents a significant recalibration of risk in non-commercial joint property finance. Background: Mrs. Catherine Waller-Edwards, who was
Corporate misconduct is becoming more claimant-friendly
The High Court ruled on the second part of a legal dispute over who controls a chain of bubble tea shops. Part one of the dispute was an unfair prejudice petition under Section 994
Is your contract enforceable? The risks of unwritten terms
This High Court case serves as a powerful cautionary tale against opportunistic buying from vulnerable sellers and emphasises the absolute necessity of strict legal compliance and
Is a box sufficient to comply with the ‘occupation’ to avoid paying non-domestic rates on the empty property?
The High Court considered the application of anti-avoidance principles to established practices in non-domestic rating (NDR), specifically addressing the "box scheme"
Section 234 is not a universal solution for administrators seeking possession of all-company property.
The Court of Appeal (CoA) was faced with the question of whether administrators can use Section 234 of the Insolvency Act (IA) 1986 to obtain an order for possession of a
A significant value gap may not be enough to establish negligence.
The Court of Appeal (CoA) confirmed that even a significant divergence in valuation does not automatically equate to a finding of negligence. Background: Mr. Bratt owned a site
Don’t be fooled by the name attached to the distributions from overseas companies.
The Court of Appeal (CoA) provided valuable clarity on the interpretation of "dividends of a capital nature" and reinforced the primacy of the distribution mechanism in