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

To access this full article please fill the form below.
All fields are mandatory unless marked as 'Optional'.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll