header-logo header-logo

24 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 24 October 2025

Company

Pagden and others v Ridgley [2025] EWHC 2674 (Ch)

The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal against a judge’s order which had rejected the appellants’ challenge to the respondent’s remuneration and expenses as administrator of Orthios Eco Parks (Anglesey) Ltd and Orthios Power (Anglesey) Ltd. The court held that r 18.34 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 did not provide jurisdiction to challenge an administrator’s remuneration paid from the proceeds of realising assets subject to a fixed charge, as such assets do not form part of the ‘company’s pot’ available for distribution to general creditors. Part 18 of the 2016 Rules, including r 18.34, applies only to remuneration and expenses relating to the administration of the company’s assets as statutorily enlarged (including assets subject to floating charges), not to assets subject to fixed charges which remain outside the insolvency process.


Employment

Simpson v Unite the Union [2025] EAT 149

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed Mr Simpson’s appeal against the further decision of the certification officer, which decided that

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll