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
High Court company dispute over share allotments, pre-emption rights and unfair prejudice, arising from capital raises after a business crisis.
Ndungu v SPG Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3039 (Ch) (18 November 2025)
High Court judgment on SPG Limited share allotments, alleged dilution, pre-emption rights, and unfair prejudice. The claim succeeded in part on pre-emption breaches.
Mandleson v Padel Solutions UK Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3189 (Ch) (03 November 2025)
The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining a drag-along sale pending trial, but required the claimant to fortify her cross-undertaking in damages by £500,000.
There is a serious issue to be tried regarding the effectiveness and fairness of the drag along notice and the adequacy of the offer. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the applicant, as she would lose proprietary and pre-emption rights that are difficult to quantify. The balance of convenience favours granting an interim injunction, provided the applicant fortifies her cross-undertaking in damages.
Source excerpt
Fane v Wellesley & Ors [2025] EWHC 352 (Ch) (20 February 2025)
Shareholder dispute over permitted transfers, information rights, and director appointment rights. The court granted substantial relief and dismissed the counterclaim.
Commercial Court decision on whether communications triggered pre-emption rights over the Idol’s Eye diamond. The court dismissed Qipco’s claim.
Qatar Investment & Projects Development Holding Co WLL v Elanus Holdings Ltd [2025] EWHC 303 (Comm) (13 February 2025)
The Commercial Court held that a pre-emption right over the Idol’s Eye diamond was not triggered because Elanus had no qualifying wish to sell, and Qipco’s claim failed.
The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the Bank, Mr Czeremcha, or Mr de Makay breached the SSA, Articles, fiduciary duties, or incurred liability under Article 415 of the Polish Civil Code. There was insufficient evidence of breach, causation of loss, or involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. The appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Magee & Ors v Crocker & Anor [2024] EWHC 1723 (Ch) (05 July 2024)
High Court chancery dispute over a 2014 share transfer, a shareholders’ agreement, and alleged misrepresentation involving the Nisma and Fitzpatrick settlements.
Syspal Capital Ltd v Truman & Anor [2024] EWHC 1561 (Ch) (24 June 2024)
The High Court construed a company’s articles and held that a deemed transfer notice was triggered only when Mr Truman resigned as director, not when he was dismissed as an employee.
Explore more
