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

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
back-to-top-scroll