header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 July 2018
Issue: 7803 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Weekly law digests

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Company

LF2 Ltd v Superstone and another [2018] EWHC 1756 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 86 (Jul)

LF2 Ltd’s appeal against a deputy judge’s dismissal of its application for an order, under para 74 of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, requiring the joint administrators of another company to assign to LF2 a cause of action that the company allegedly had in relation to a claim against its former solicitors (the Firm) was dismissed. The Companies Court held, among other things, that, while the deputy judge had been wrong to conclude on the material before him that the claim against the firm was frivolous and vexatious, it was not open to the present court to allow the appeal, having regard to the terms of LF2’s appellant’s notice. The court considered the procedure to be adopted in relation to an application under para 74, and the attitude an administrator should adopt in relation to the possibility of a claim by a company against a third party.

Divorce

Thum v Thum [2018] EWCA Civ 624, [2018]

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
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’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll