header-logo header-logo

04 March 2026
Issue: 8152 / Categories: Legal News , Limitation , Company , Governance
printer mail-detail

Unfair prejudice petition is subject to time limits, says Supreme Court

Statutory limitation periods do not apply to unfair prejudice petitions brought under the Companies Act, the Supreme Court has held in a 4–1 majority decision, Lord Burrows dissenting

THG v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) [2026] UKSC 6, handed down last week, overturns a landmark Court of Appeal decision in the same case two years ago. That unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal created a stir as it contradicted ‘received wisdom for over 40 years’ that statutory limitations do apply.

The dispute concerned a petition brought by Zedra in January 2019 under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006, contending it was wrongly excluded from a bonus shares issue in 2016, which would have paid out when the company floated in 2020. Zedra alleged this conduct was unfairly prejudicial. THG countered the petition was out of time.

Lords Hodge and Richards, giving the main judgment, said: ‘It is generally in the public interest that stale claims are not allowed to proceed, and that there should be finality in litigation... But such broadly textured policy considerations have a limited role to play in the interpretation of the [Limitation Act 1980], which provides varied time limits for the commencement of different claims and provides no limitation periods for certain causes of action.’

Brodies partner Craig Watt said the decision ‘provides definite clarity.

‘This materially changes the strategic landscape for shareholder corporate disputes. Both companies and minority shareholders should review their governance frameworks, historical actions, and dispute resolution readiness in light of this important decision.’

However, ‘acting promptly remains important, as the court may still decline relief where there has been undue delay,’ Watt said.

‘Boards and corporate secretaries must keep comprehensive and accurate records of decisions, shareholder communications, and actions related to unfair prejudice. Poor documentation can undermine the defence of past petitions.’

Issue: 8152 / Categories: Legal News , Limitation , Company , Governance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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