In Tokenhouse VB Limited [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch), the court ruled that failure to serve Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators on a Qualified Floating Charge Holder will not automatically void an Administration.

Over the last 4 ½ years, thousands of newspaper columns have speculated on the eventual outcome of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Now the moment has almost arrived, it is worth reviewing what this will mean for employment law, probably the most heavily EU-influenced area of law in UK legislation.

Optimus Build Ltd v Southall & Anor, reported last month, was an all-too-familiar case of a falling out between home-owner and their building contractor and the termination of their building contract.

Case Update: Seabrook Road Ltd v Security Trustee Services Ltd [2001] EWHC 436 (Ch)

This ruling is definitive, as HMRC has no further route for appeal. It will be received with relief by charities, homes and other operators that use buildings for a relevant residential or charitable purpose.

A recent decision by the First-tier Tribunal has decided that contributions to, and subsequent loans from, a remuneration trust scheme were not ‘earnings’ or disguised remuneration.

On 1st October 2021 a number of the temporary measures introduced by government to protect businesses from the financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic come to an end. These include the end of the furlough scheme and the removal of the temporary restrictions on the issue of winding up petitions.

A leading immigration lawyer in the Midlands says further Government support may be needed to help businesses move staff more quickly away from conflict in Ukraine.

In a recent dispute between European Professional Club Rugby, the governing body and organiser of two European premier club rugby union competitions, and sports media broadcaster, RDA Television LLP, the High Court allowed for the lawful termination of a contract due to COVID-19 on the grounds of force majeure.

On 8 April 2022 Chief ICC Judge Briggs handed down his judgment in the Glam and Tan Limited – in Liquidation v Mrs Danielle Litras case in which the liquidator brought proceedings against the sole de jure director, L, in a claim for misfeasance under section 212 IA ’86.