Selected insolvency judgments, official statistics and practical implications for professional advisers.
Last updated: 18 October 2026. Entries are ordered newest first by judgment or statistical-release date; those dates are distinct from this page’s publication.
Judgment note · Company disputes and winding up
Shareholder deadlock: winding up and the limits of alternative remedies
The High Court granted summary judgment on a just and equitable winding-up petition following a prolonged dispute between the company’s ordinary shareholder and its entrenched director.
An earlier summary judgment application had failed because compliance with shareholder directions offered a potential way out of the deadlock. The director’s continued resistance meant that route no longer resolved the position. The court also rejected the contention that the petitioner was unreasonable in declining the proposed third-party offers.
Limits of the decision. The court refused permission to serve the pleaded unfair prejudice petition out of the jurisdiction. It left the alternative Part 8 claim concerning the special resolutions in abeyance, neither determined nor dismissed. Its discussion of that claim must not be described as a separate judgment granting the requested declarations or injunctions.
Practical relevance. In a shareholder-control dispute, assess the company’s constitution, the actual viability of alternatives to winding up and the evidence supporting any proposed exit. This fact-specific decision is not a rule that every breakdown of relations justifies winding up.
The Commercial Court considered receivership as a means of enforcing a judgment debt exceeding US$250 million after other enforcement steps had proved unsuccessful.
A receivership order operates against the defendant personally rather than transferring ownership of overseas assets. The court considered whether receivers would serve a useful enforcement purpose and addressed objections concerning foreign assets and the proposed scope of relief.
The qualification matters. Appointment was considered appropriate in principle, subject to further consideration of the proportionality of probable costs. Further evidence was required before the court decided whether to make the order. The proposed initial scope excluded assets in Vietnam. This judgment should not be presented as an unconditional final worldwide receivership order.
Practical relevance. A creditor proposing equitable execution should identify the enforcement obstacle, reachable assets, a realistic benefit and likely receivership costs. A large unpaid debt alone does not remove the need to justify the remedy and its scope.
Company insolvencies in August 2026: broadly steady overall
Reporting period: August 2026 · Insolvency Service release:
The Insolvency Service recorded 1,946 company insolvencies in England and Wales in August 2026, close to July’s 1,934 and 3% below August 2025.
1,946Total company insolvencies
1,431Creditors’ voluntary liquidations
314Compulsory liquidations
182Administrations
19Company voluntary arrangements
There were no receivership appointments. Administrations increased by 44% from July; the release attributes recent volatility to more than 250 connected real-estate companies entering administration. The rolling rate was 50.1 insolvencies per 10,000 companies, against 52.5 a year earlier.
Scope and limits. These are England-and-Wales figures, not UK totals. Solvent liquidations and dissolutions are excluded. CVLs, compulsory liquidations and administrations are seasonally adjusted; CVAs are not. All figures are provisional and subject to review. Counts do not establish the cause of an individual company’s insolvency.
Recordings are listed by the court. Playback has not been independently verified.
Subsequent proceedings: the Supreme Court records a permission-to-appeal application lodged, issued 2 October 2026 (UKSC/2026/0145). Permission is not shown as granted. Checked 17 October 2026.
The Court of Appeal allowed a challenge to an out-of-court administrator appointment to proceed notwithstanding the appointor’s contractual entitlement to enforce its security.
The pleaded allegation was that the appointment power had been exercised solely for an improper purpose. The court held that the challenge could not be disposed of summarily merely because an event of default had occurred or because administrators would act independently after appointment.
What remains undecided. The appeal did not establish that the alleged purpose existed or that the appointment was invalid. Those allegations required examination at trial. Nor should the decision be treated as invalidating loan-to-own strategies generally.
Practical relevance. Appointment advice should address both the legal conditions for exercising the power and evidence of the purpose for which it is exercised. A challenge based on motive requires a properly supported case, rather than an inference from an unwelcome enforcement outcome.
Recordings are listed by the court. Playback has not been independently verified.
The Supreme Court reinstated €67,123,403.36 in equitable compensation following the dishonest transfer of shares out of a BVI company in liquidation.
The dispute and result
The trial judge awarded compensation for shares transferred from MBI International & Partners Inc. The Court of Appeal reduced the award to zero because a later transfer of assets and liabilities had rendered the shares worthless. The Supreme Court allowed the liquidators’ appeal on loss and restored the compensation order. It also dismissed the Sheikh’s appeal on fiduciary duty and unpaid vendor’s liens.
The precise burden
To rely on the 2017 transfer to reduce compensation, the Sheikh had to establish that he had neither played a significant part in that transfer nor obtained a significant benefit from it at the company’s expense. He did not attempt to discharge that burden at trial or on appeal. The Court identified evidence calling for an answer about his involvement and benefit.
Why later events still matter
The decision does not make every subsequent fall in value irrelevant or impose breach-date valuation in every fiduciary claim. A later event independent of the defaulting fiduciary, exposing the principal to the same loss without the breach, may affect compensation. Its causal significance must be established, not assumed from a trial-date value of nil.
Practical implications
Office-holders should investigate ownership, control and value through successive transactions. A fiduciary relying on a later event needs evidence explaining its effect and his own role. That is an application of the reasoning to litigation preparation, rather than a separate rule announced by the Court.
Primary source:Full official Supreme Court judgment, linked appeals UKSC/2024/0075 and 0076. Relevant reasoning: [101], [108]–[115], [123] and [128]–[129]. The heading uses the short case name; the full parties appear in the judgment.
Recordings are listed by the court. Playback has not been independently verified.
Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is not restricted to a company’s directors or managers. An outsider’s knowing, active participation in its fraudulent business can fall within the provision.
What was decided. The statutory issue arose on assumed facts disputed by Tradition, under a partial settlement without admission of liability. The ruling should not be presented as a trial finding that Tradition committed the alleged fraud.
The limits matter: mere failure to advise is insufficient. A single transaction is not enough unless it itself evidences the carrying on of a fraudulent business.
Separate limitation issue. The restored companies failed to prove that they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud in the counterfactual period of continued existence. Actual dissolution did not establish that proposition.
Practical implication. Advisers must distinguish a defendant’s office from its knowledge and participation, and support a restored company’s limitation case with evidence.