header-logo header-logo

03 May 2024 / Lara Kuehl
Issue: 8069 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Company
printer mail-detail

Section 994 petitions: received wisdom?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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