header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 February 2016 / Benjamin Caswell
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Not back to the future?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7686_caswell

When a dissolved company is restored what happens to its former property, asks Benjamin Caswell

In the Back to the Future film franchise Marty McFly travelled backwards and forwards in time by 30 years, first to 1955 and back, and then to 2015 and back. The similarities and differences between the predicted 2015 featured therein and the real 2015 have been commented upon elsewhere. Much of the dramatic tension in the first film revolved around the need to ensure that Marty’s trip to the past did not disturb the reality of his present.

Prestwick

It is doubtful that the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland had the film franchise in mind when they gave their recent decision in ELB Securities Ltd v Alan Love & Prestwick Hotels Ltd [2015] CSIH 67, but nonetheless the same dramatic tension is involved.

The issue that faced them is what happens when a dissolved company is restored, in particular what happens to the property that it once owned?

In case English practitioners

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll