header-logo header-logo

Section 994 petitions: received wisdom?

03 May 2024 / Lara Kuehl
Issue: 8069 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Company
printer mail-detail
169531
Why everyone was wrong about s 994 petitions. Lara Kuehl assesses THG v Zedra—the case that turned what we thought we knew on its head
  • Overturning 40 years of ‘received wisdom’ in company law, the Court of Appeal held in THG plc and others v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd that unfair prejudice petitions are, in fact, subject to statutory limitation periods.
  • A 12-year limitation period will apply, unless the relief sought is the payment of money (liquidated or unliquidated), in which case, a six-year limitation period applies.
  • As the Court of Appeal recognised, some implications, such as when the courts can dismiss claims on the grounds of delay (even if brought within the relevant limitation period), will need to be worked out in future cases.

It had been widely believed for 40 years by the company law world that unfair prejudice petitions were not subject to any statutory limitation period. It now appears, however, that judges at every level, leading practitioner texts and two Law Commission reports have all been wrong about

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

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll