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

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

Commercial property and child law teams expand with senior hires

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Set expands London and Singapore offering with senior international disputes hires

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Firm strengthens real estate and litigation teams with partner promotions

NEWS
Behind the profession’s polished exterior, lawyers are ‘internally drained rather than physically tired’, according to a stark assessment of burnout in legal practice
Five years after the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force, concerns remain that the family courts continue to minimise allegations of abuse in child contact disputes
Uber has built a formidable strategy for insulating itself from liability for drivers’ conduct, but the legal terrain differs sharply between the US and England and Wales
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 marks a constitutional watershed by severing the centuries-old link between hereditary titles and automatic membership of the upper chamber
The Civil Justice Council’s review of Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 could mark the end of what one commentator calls an ‘outdated’ and overly technical regime governing solicitor-client fee disputes
back-to-top-scroll