Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court dismissed a summary judgment application in an insolvency/company dispute, adjourned trial, and held the respondents had a realistic prospect of defending the claims.
The High Court held that directors breached their duties by entering aggressive tax schemes without proper creditor consideration and ordered them to repay £436,500.
The court refused leave under section 304 Insolvency Act 1986 for a bankrupt to sue trustees over the sale of a French plot, finding no reasonably meritorious undervalue claim.
Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Pal [2026] EWHC 262 (Ch) (12 February 2026)
The High Court found a company director unfit after she overstated turnover to obtain a Bounce Back Loan and used most of the funds for non-business purposes.
Mahal v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB) (30 October 2025)
The High Court struck out a claim against the Metropolitan Police and granted summary judgment, holding the pleaded causes of action were abusive, misconceived, or without real prospect.
Elite owed the Company £552,737 under a contract of loan, not limitation barred; dividends declared in 2012 and 2013 were transactions at undervalue under s.238 IA 1986, Elite liable for £1,200,000; Mr Stavrinides breached director duties in declaring 2013 dividend, liable for £250,000; May 2013 Agreement was a transaction at undervalue regarding contingent liabilities, Elite and Essex liable for £174,471.66 less any eventuated liabilities; Essex entitled to an account and payment of sums received by Company after 18 May 2013 in respect of assigned debts.
Source excerpt
Mr James fraudulently caused Tundrill Ltd to apply for a bounce back loan by providing a false turnover figure, used the majority of the funds for personal benefit, and did so when the company was insolvent and under threat of winding-up. He knew or ought to have known the company was not eligible and that the funds were not used for economic benefit to the company. His conduct fell below the standards of probity and competence required of company directors, justifying a lengthy disqualification.
Source excerpt
IAHP Group Holdings Lt, Re [2025] EWHC 2069 (Ch) (04 August 2025)
The High Court granted a without-notice proprietary injunction, worldwide freezing order, and disclosure order in a liquidation misfeasance claim against two former directors.
Mr Haq failed to account for impugned payments and cash withdrawals, breached statutory and fiduciary duties, and is liable to repay the sums claimed as he did not provide evidence to justify the payments or invoke valid statutory relief.
Source excerpt
The Respondents, as directors, breached fiduciary and statutory duties by unlawfully diverting company funds for personal benefit, failed to maintain proper records, and attempted to disguise their conduct. The alleged shareholder loans are not substantiated by contemporaneous evidence and do not justify set-off. There is a real risk of asset dissipation, justifying the grant of a proprietary injunction, worldwide freezing order, and disclosure order, with a capped cross-undertaking in damages.
Source excerpt
Explore more
