header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Law digests: 16 January 2026

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
16 January 2026
Issue: 8145 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Company

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Purity Ltd [2025] EWHC 3401 (Ch)

The Chancery Division granted HMRC's winding-up petition against Purity Ltd, the first such petition presented under s 85, Finance Act 2022, which permits HMRC to seek the winding-up of tax avoidance scheme promoters when it is expedient in the public interest for the protection of public revenue. The court found Purity was a ‘relevant body’ under s 85 and that it was just and equitable to wind up the company on three grounds: first, Purity's tax avoidance scheme caused substantial tax loss; second, Purity demonstrated lack of transparency to both employees and HMRC; and third, Purity represented a continuation of a similar business previously conducted by Alpha Republic Ltd, which had also been liquidated following HMRC investigation. The court determined that compulsory liquidation was appropriate despite Purity already being in creditors' voluntary liquidation, emphasising the need for full investigation by independent office-holders and to send a clear message to tax avoidance scheme promoters.

Costs

R v Jacob (formerly Oyemola)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

WSP Solicitors—Amie Williamson

Gloucestershire firm boosts residential conveyancing team

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

mfg Solicitors—Andrew Johnson

Firm strengthens corporate team in Worcester with new hire

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

London Market FOIL—Ling Ong

Weightmans partner appointed president of London Market Forum of Insurance Lawyers

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
NLJ this week: Spotlight on the Supreme Court in 2025
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll