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

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

Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll