Checkmate – shareholder disputes and unfair prejudice petitions

• 3 June 2026
• News
• Commercial and corporate disputes

As the name suggests, unfair prejudice petitions provide a mechanism for shareholders to seek relief when they have been unfairly prejudiced by the manner in which a company’s affairs have been conducted.

Below we consider:

1. Which shareholders can bring a petition?
2. Which companies can be petitioned against?
3. What must a petitioner show?
4. What relief can a petitioner obtain?
5. What bars are there to relief?
6. What key questions should a potential petitioner consider?

This article forms part of our Checkmate – your essential guide to commercial disputes series, a collection of practical insights designed to help businesses navigate common dispute scenarios with clarity and confidence. Explore the full guide here.

1. Who can bring a petition?

Any “member” of an English company may bring a petition. This includes:

• all registered shareholders;
• unregistered shareholders who have been transferred shares by an effective instrument of transfer; and
• recipients of shares by operation of law (for example, a trustee in bankruptcy).

Not included, however, are other parties who may be entitled to be registered as shareholders, for example, those who have been wrongly removed from the register. Such parties may need to bring a claim to rectify the register before or alongside bringing a petition.

In theory, a majority or minority shareholder can bring a petition. However, given that any petition will be barred if there are readily available means for the shareholder to remedy the relevant prejudice, in practice most petitions are brought by minority shareholders.

A party which owns only the beneficial interest in shares cannot bring a petition, although the party who holds the legal interest in the shares (for example, a trustee) may do so on their behalf.

2. Which companies can be petitioned against?

A petition may be brought against any English company still in existence including a company in liquidation.

However, it is likely to be more difficult for shareholders in large companies to establish unfair prejudice than for shareholders in “quasi-partnerships”. Typically, these are companies with a small number of shareholders between whom there exists:

• a relationship of mutual confidence;
• an understanding that all or some of them will participate in the management of the company’s business; and/or
• restrictions on the transfer of their shares.

3. What must a petitioner show?

A petitioner must show that the company’s affairs have been conducted or will imminently be conducted in a way that has caused or will cause them unfair prejudice.

The petitioner must, as a threshold issue, be able to point to conduct relating to the company’s affairs. Conduct of the company’s directors which does not directly relate to the company is generally irrelevant unless extreme (for example, violence), as is conduct of shareholders in relation to their shareholdings. Any conduct of the business of the company’s parent or subsidiary companies is also generally irrelevant, unless the parent or subsidiary controls or is controlled by the company petitioned against.

The relevant conduct must cause the petitioner unfair prejudice in their capacity as a shareholder. The most obvious form of prejudice is a reduction in the value of the petitioner’s shareholding. However, prejudice as a shareholder is construed broadly. For example, in quasi-partnership cases it can also include being excluded from management, if the petitioner acquired their shares on the understanding that they would be involved in management.

As for unfairness, a shareholder is not generally entitled to expect more than that a company’s affairs will be conducted in compliance with its articles of association, any other relevant agreements and the general law. Accordingly, while breaches by the directors of their fiduciary duties and breaches of the company’s articles would likely be unfair, behaviour which does not infringe strict legal rights or duties is less likely to meet the test.

That said, in quasi-partnership cases, courts are more likely to find unfairness where a shareholder’s legitimate expectations (if not their strict legal rights) have been thwarted; for example, where they acquired shares on the understanding that dividends would be paid at a certain level, and this has not been respected.

Notably, neither a breakdown in trust and confidence between shareholders nor a deadlock alone are sufficient to establish unfairness. Both scenarios may, however, provide grounds for the company to be wound up.

4. What relief can a petitioner obtain?

The standard remedy for unfair prejudice is an order that the majority shareholder in the company buy out the petitioner’s minority interest. The price will be fixed at market value, ignoring any reduction caused by the prejudicial conduct. In quasi-partnership cases at least, any reduction in value associated with a minority shareholding is also generally ignored.

The court’s powers are not confined to purchase orders, however, it has a broad discretion to remedy the relevant unfairness. It can make orders, for example, for particular acts to be done or not done or amendments to be made the company’s constitutional documents. Notably, a court is not confined only to remedies proposed by the parties but can make whatever order it thinks fit.

5. Bars to relief

A petition will be barred where a petitioner has made a fair offer to purchase the petitioner’s shares at market value; or where the petitioner has agreed to another mechanism (for example, in the company’s articles) which would allow them to sell their shares.

Petitioner misconduct will also bar a petition, provided that the conduct is sufficiently serious and closely related to the petition.

While the courts have recently confirmed that no limitation period applies to unfair prejudice petitions, courts may withhold relief if a petitioner has unreasonably delayed in pursuing their petition.

6. Key questions for potential petitioners

The following questions are likely to be key for any potential petitioner:

• Are they a “member” entitled to bring a petition? In particular, a party whose shares are not registered may need to take steps to have their shares registered before or alongside bringing any petition.
• What sort of company would the petition be brought against? In particular, might the company qualify as a quasi-partnership? If so, this may make it easier to establish unfair prejudice.
• Does the conduct complained of relate to the company itself and cause the petitioner prejudice in its capacity as shareholder?
• Is the conduct unfair? Infringement of strict legal rights or duties is likely to qualify. However, a failure to meet the petitioner’s legitimate expectations may also be relevant, particularly in quasi-partnership scenarios.
• What remedy does the petitioner wish to obtain? Does this remedy appear likely to be ordered as a remedy for the relevant unfairness? If not, a petition may not be the best option even if unfair prejudice could be established.
• Do any of the bars to relief apply? In particular, is there another way of the petitioner obtaining an exit from the company? Petitioners should also take steps as soon as possible to raise any conduct issues with the company in order to avoid any arguments around delay.

This insight is one of a series of Checkmate articles exploring the core themes that underpin modern commercial disputes, from post-acquisition claims to shareholder conflicts and directors’ duties.

To access the full guide and build a broader understanding of the risks and strategic considerations across these areas, visit here.

Checkmate – managing post-acquisition disputes

• 3 June 2026
• News
• Commercial and corporate disputes

Parties buying and selling a business are generally focused on completing the deal and on their plans post-closing. While their lawyers will have advised on the transaction with a view to avoiding future disputes, this is unlikely to have been the main focus.

So what claims are typically made by buyers following a sale? And what are the priority issues for buyers and sellers if a dispute does arise?

This article forms part of our Checkmate – your essential guide to commercial disputes series, a collection of practical insights designed to help businesses navigate common dispute scenarios with clarity and confidence. Explore the full guide here.

Warranties

Many post-acquisition disputes concern breaches of warranties, a key feature of most sale and purchase agreements (SPAs).

A warranty is a contractual promise made by the seller to the buyer that a particular factual position exists in relation to the asset – i.e., the business – being sold. For example, the seller of a business commonly warrants that its accounts give a true and accurate picture of its financial position.

Warranties are necessary to provide buyers with protection given the default rule of “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware”, which places the risk of an asset failing to meet the buyer’s expectations on the buyer.

When a warranty is breached, a buyer is entitled to claim its loss from the seller. In this scenario, the law aims to put the buyer in the position that it would have been in if the warranty had not been breached. As such, the buyer is generally entitled to claim the difference between the value of the business that it actually acquired and the value that the business would have had if the warranty had been true.

Warranties are often qualified so that a seller is not liable for what would otherwise be an actionable breach:

• Where the fact which makes the warranty untrue has been “fairly disclosed” by the seller. What counts as fair disclosure depends on the wording of the SPA. However, the general idea is that the fact should have been meaningfully brought to the buyer’s attention, for example, by being specifically flagged in the disclosure letter provided by the seller – as opposed to simply being available in theory within one of the documents in the data room.
• Where the fact which makes the warranty untrue is within the knowledge of the buyer. What counts as knowledge again depends on the wording of the SPA. It can be restricted to actual knowledge – often that of specific individuals (for example, the buyer’s directors) – or extend to constructive knowledge i.e., where the buyer should know.

There is often overlap between fair disclosure and buyer knowledge. For example, a fact that has been fairly disclosed by the seller is likely to be within the actual or constructive knowledge of the buyer.

Indemnities

Post-acquisition disputes also often concern claims under indemnities, another key feature of most SPAs.

Whereas a warranty is a promise that a particular factual position exists, an indemnity is a promise to meet the buyer’s liabilities if a particular risk eventuates. For example, it is common in a business sale for the seller to indemnify the buyer in respect of any additional tax liability that may arise after the sale relating to the period beforehand.

The scope of the risks covered by an indemnity is determined by the contractual wording, though the Courts have given guidance regarding the meaning of particular words that are frequently used, for example, “costs”.

It is common for there to be overlap between the warranties and the indemnities in an SPA. For example, an indemnity in respect of tax liabilities is often accompanied by a warranty that the business has paid the correct tax. Often a buyer will wish to pursue breaches of both a warranty and an indemnity because each has different advantages and disadvantages. For example, an indemnity may be more obviously applicable to the facts than a warranty, but may also be subject to a cap when the warranty is not.

Notification of claims

Many SPAs provide that notice of any claim must be given within a prescribed period after completion (often a year or two).

A claim notice is also frequently required to meet particular form requirements (for example, to be sent in hard copy to a particular address) and to contain particular information (often a brief description of the background facts, the claim’s legal basis, the amount sought and the basis on which it is calculated). This seeks to ensure that the notice is directed to the appropriate individual and that they have enough information to assess the claim.

Meeting the above requirements is crucial: if a notice in the required form is not provided within the time limit, the claim is barred.

Priority issues if a dispute arises

If a potential claim is identified after closing, the following issues should be considered as a priority:

• Does the claim arguably fall within one of the warranties or indemnities? If not, this may not be fatal to the claim – but these are the likeliest route to liability.
• If a claim falls within one of the warranties, has the seller’s liability been qualified by relevant facts being fairly disclosed and/or within the buyer’s knowledge?
• What is the value of the claim? In particular, in warranty cases, how much more valuable – if at all – would the business have been if the warranty had been true? In indemnity cases, what losses fall within the terms of the indemnity?
• What are the form and content requirements for notifying a claim? Crucially, what is the time limit?

While the above considerations are not a substitute for detailed legal advice, they should provide a starting point when assessing many potential claims.

To find out more about our team, our expertise and how we can help you, please visit our Commercial Disputes page here.

This insight is one of a series of Checkmate articles exploring the core themes that underpin modern commercial disputes, from post-acquisition claims to shareholder conflicts and directors’ duties.

To access the full guide and build a broader understanding of the risks and strategic considerations across these areas, visit here.

Checkmate – understanding directors’ duties and risk

• 3 June 2026
• News
• Commercial and corporate disputes

A company’s directors are the key individuals responsible for the conduct of its affairs. Their conduct is regulated largely through their directors’ duties. Breaches of those duties are therefore a common subject for disputes.

Below we address:

1. Who are a director’s duties owed to?
2. What are those duties?
3. What are the consequences of breach?
4. What should be considered first if there is a suspected breach?

This article forms part of our Checkmate – your essential guide to commercial disputes series, a collection of practical insights designed to help businesses navigate common dispute scenarios with clarity and confidence. Explore the full guide here.

1. Duties to who?

A director’s duties are generally owed to the company itself rather than to third parties, for example, its shareholders or creditors. Generally, this means that it is only the company itself that can pursue directors for any breaches (although see the final section below for some qualifications).

2. What are a directors’ duties?

Acting within powers

Directors must act in accordance with the company’s “constitution”, broadly defined. Acts that are inconsistent with the company’s articles of association or certain shareholder resolutions (for example, special resolutions) will breach the duty. So too, however, will certain acts outside the directors’ powers under the general law, for example, making unlawful distributions.

As well as acting within their powers, directors must also exercise those powers only for the purposes for which they are given. An act that is within a director’s powers but motivated by an improper purpose will breach the duty, even if done in good faith.

Acting in the company’s best interests

Directors must act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members (i.e., its shareholders) as a whole.

The duty is subjective in that a director’s conduct is assessed against what they knew and thought at the relevant time. However, the duty is also objective in that:

• In seeking to act in the company’s interests, a director must have regard to various specific factors, so far as relevant to the act in question. These factors are of intuitive relevance to the company’s interests and include, for example, its relationships with third parties, the interests of its employees and its market reputation.
• All directors’ actions are subject to the fundamental requirement of good faith. The touchstone is honesty and this is judged objectively by the standards of “ordinary decent people”. For example, a director who lies to their fellow directors will rarely be honest.

Exercising independent judgment

A director is required to make their own decisions, and not simply to carry out the wishes of others, for example, the company’s shareholders or its other directors.

Significantly, this does not prevent directors from relying on specialist advice, provided that they exercise their own judgment when doing so; indeed, they may be required to seek advice – see below.

Exercising reasonable care

Directors must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. The standard is both objective and subjective: a director is required to exhibit the expertise expected of a director in their position and also (if a higher bar) the expertise that they actually possess. For example, a finance director with computing expertise would be expected to exhibit expertise in both finance and computing.

Where directors lack expertise in the matter under consideration, exercising reasonable care may well require them to obtain specialist advice, for example, from lawyers or accountants.

“No conflict” duty

A director must avoid any situation in which the company’s interests conflict or may conflict with their own. In particular (but not exclusively), directors are prohibited from exploiting any property, information or opportunity that has come to them as a director.

While this is an exacting test, the duty will not be infringed where the situation cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict i.e., where is no “real sensible possibility” of conflict. It would be unlikely, for example, that a director would breach the duty by making an investment in a company in a different industry that it was in theory possible (but highly unlikely) that the company might compete with if it diversified its business. It is also generally possible for any conflict that does arise to be authorised by the company’s other directors.

The “no conflict” duty is unusual is carrying on even once a director has left office. At this stage, however, it is narrower and only prevents the director from exploiting any “property, information, or opportunity” that came to them when in post. “Opportunity” in this context is generally thought to require the existence of a “maturing business opportunity” i.e., a developed opportunity that the company itself was actively pursuing.

Third party benefits

A director is not permitted to accept benefits presented to them by third parties either for doing or not doing anything as a director or simply because they are a director. This duty is related to the “no conflict” duty. Similarly to that duty, receipt of benefits is permitted where the situation cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict. However, unlike with that duty, the receipt of otherwise impermissible benefits cannot be authorised by fellow directors.

Transactions or arrangements with the company

A director who is interested in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company is required to declare it to their fellow directors. However, no declaration is required if the situation cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to produce a conflict (as above) or if the other directors are aware or should be aware of the director’s interest.

The “creditor duty”

As noted above, a director is generally required to act in the interests of the company’s members i.e., its shareholders. However, when a director knows or should know that the company is insolvent or borderline insolvent, they must also give appropriate weight to the interests of creditors. [1] The appropriate weight increases as the insolvency position worsens until eventually creditor interests become paramount. It is uncertain exactly when this point arrives, but it is probably when insolvent liquidation or administration has become inevitable.

3. Consequences of breach

Directors’ breaches of duty can often be consented to or formally ratified by a company’s shareholders, thereby absolving the director of liability. However, there are various exceptions, for example, where the breach is dishonest or unlawful or is a breach of the creditor duty.

If it is not possible to authorise or ratify a breach, the main potential consequence is an action by the company against the director, seeking one of more of: the setting aside of the relevant transaction; compensation for loss; an account of any profits made from the breach; or an injunction.

It certain scenarios, other parties can pursue an action on behalf of the company against its directors, for example, shareholders (who may bring a derivative action in the company’s name) and liquidators (when the company is in liquidation).

Breaches of directors’ duties are also sometimes relied upon indirectly in support of other claims, for example, in unfair prejudice petitions, whereby a particular shareholder or class of shareholders alleges that the company has treated them unfairly.

4. Priority considerations in the event of a suspected breach

Where a director appears to have misconducted themself, the following issues are worth considering at the outset:

• Has the director potentially breached the company’s articles of association or any shareholder resolutions, exploited any company property or information or received any benefits from third parties? If so, these are likely to be the most straightforward breaches of duty. In other scenarios, for example where the director appears not to have conducted themself with reasonable skill, the issue may be more nuanced and uncertain. It is also worth remembering that breaches of directors’ duties are one of only a number potentially relevant claims where a director has misconducted themself.
• Assuming there is a breach duty, what position do you hold in relation to the company? If you are a fellow director or other party with conduct of the company’s affairs, you may be able to bring an action on the company’s behalf; if not, you may be unable to do so, although any breaches of duty may still be relevant to other claims you can bring.
• If you are the director that may have breached their duties, can you obtain the approval of your fellow directors or the company’s shareholders so as to absolve yourself from liability? If not, does the company have D&O (directors’ and officers’) insurance? If so, this may cover the legal costs of defending any potential claim.

This insight is one of a series of Checkmate articles exploring the core themes that underpin modern commercial disputes, from post-acquisition claims to shareholder conflicts and directors’ duties.

To access the full guide and build a broader understanding of the risks and strategic considerations across these areas, visit here.

[1] Also relevant here are the rules on wrongful trading which regulate trading carried out by directors in an insolvency context.

Checkmate – a typical High Court claim

• 3 June 2026
• News
• Commercial and corporate disputes

For many businesses and individuals, court proceedings in England and Wales appear unfamiliar and complex. Proceedings vary depending on the nature of the claim and the court, while even similar claims in the same court will differ depending on how they are managed by the parties’ lawyers and the judge. Nonetheless, claims in the High Court – the venue for most claims worth more than £100,000 – tend to follow the same basic timetable.

So how might a typical commercial dispute unfold in the English courts? And what are the practical considerations for parties navigating the judicial process for the first time?

Below we outline a typical High Court timetable and provide some tips on initial steps for parties advancing or defending a claim.

This article forms part of our Checkmate – your essential guide to commercial disputes series, a collection of practical insights designed to help businesses navigate common dispute scenarios with clarity and confidence. Explore the full guide here.

What to expect from a typical High Court claim

A typical claim involves the following stages:

• Pre-action correspondence
• Issue and service of proceedings
• Statements of case
• Case management conference
• Disclosure
• Witness statements
• Expert reports
• Pre-trial review
• Trial
• Judgment

Timings for each stage vary by claim. However, it would not be uncommon for a reasonably complex set of proceedings to take several years to progress from pre-action correspondence to trial.

Here, we look at each stage in further detail below.

Pre-action correspondence

Parties are expected to try to resolve disputes outside court if possible. Before commencing proceedings, a claimant is usually required to send the defendant a “letter before action” outlining the facts giving rise to the claim, the claim’s legal basis and the relief sought. If a sum of money is claimed, the claimant should explain how it has been calculated. While the claimant need not provide comprehensive details at this stage, sufficient information should be provided for the defendant to understand the case and respond to it.

After receiving a letter before action, a defendant is required to respond within a reasonable timeframe, explaining whether or not the claim is accepted.

During the above exchanges, parties should disclose key documents in support of their positions.

Issue and service of proceedings

If pre-action correspondence does not result in a resolution, the claimant will proceed to commence court proceedings by filing a claim form. If there is an imminent limitation deadline, the claimant may also need to issue a claim protectively while pre-action correspondence is ongoing.

The claim form need only summarise the claimant’s case at a high level. However, the description should be broad enough to cover all claims that the claimant may wish to advance in its particulars of claim (see below).

A fee is payable for issuing a claim. This is usually 5% of the amount claimed up to a maximum of £10,000.

Once the claim form has been issued, the claimant generally has four months to serve it on the defendant (or six months if the defendant is overseas, in which case permission to serve may need to be sought from the court). Service triggers the next stage in the proceedings: the exchange of statements of case.

Statements of case

The claimant is required to set out its factual and legal case first in its “particulars of claim”. All claims that the claimant wishes to advance in the proceedings should be included, as permission must be sought from the defendant or the court for any future amendments.

The defendant is required to respond to the particulars of claim in its “defence”. Each paragraph of the particulars should be responded to in turn, explaining whether the relevant assertion is admitted or denied.

Although it will not always wish to do so, a claimant is entitled to serve a “reply” to the defence. The format is the same as a defence i.e., the reply responds to each paragraph of the defence in turn.

Any counterclaim that the defendant wishes to bring against the claimant should be included in its defence. Service of a counterclaim triggers a further round of statements of case: a defence to counterclaim and potentially a reply to defence to counterclaim.

Case management conference

The next key step is a court hearing called a “case management conference” or “CMC” at which the court provides directions for the remainder of the proceedings.

In advance of the CMC, the parties will seek to agree a timetable to trial and on the scope of disclosure and any expert evidence (see below). These discussions can happen either in parralel with the claimant’s preparation of its reply or immediately afterwards. Any disputes between the parties regarding the directions required are then resolved at the CMC.

The court will also generally hear any outstanding ancillary applications at the CMC. For example, a defendant may apply for the claimant to provide security for its costs of defending the proceedings.

Disclosure

The next stage is disclosure of documents. Before the CMC, the parties will have sought to agree which issues in the case require disclosure and the scope of the searches they will each conduct. At the CMC, the court will have ruled on any disputes and provided a final set of search parameters.

During the disclosure phase, the parties conduct their searches in line with those parameters and review responsive documents for relevance, before producing any relevant documents to the other side on the disclosure deadline.

The courts have sought to limit the size of disclosure in recent years and technological advances (for example, in AI) have reduced the need for documents to be reviewed manually by lawyers. Nevertheless, disclosure remains one of the most burdensome and expensive phases in a High Court claim.

Witness evidence

During the witness evidence phase, the parties’ lawyers will interview factual witnesses and prepare witness statements outlining their recollection of the facts giving rise to the dispute.

The courts have recently issued guidance emphasising that, given that the purpose of a witness statement is to outline the witness’s recollection of the facts giving rise to the dispute, statements should so far as possible be in the witness’s own words, avoid undue reference to documents (a detailed recollection of which is unlikely) and not engage in legal argument.

Witness statements are usually exchanged simultaneously i.e., all parties’ witness statements are served at the same time, rather than in sequence. In complex cases, it is common to exchange two rounds of statements, with each party’s second round statements responding to the other party’s first round statements.

If a party wishes to challenge the evidence provided by one of the other side’s witnesses in a witness statement, they are required to do so during their oral cross-examination of the witness at trial.

Expert evidence

The parties will try and agree whether any issues require expert evidence in advance of the CMC, with any disputes being determined at the CMC.

While expert evidence is not required in all claims, it will be ordered where there is an issue on which the parties are not qualified to provide evidence, for example, the amount of the claimant’s loss.

It is possible for the court to appoint a joint expert to provide evidence on behalf of both parties. However, it is more common, particularly in more complex and high value claims, for the parties each to appoint their own expert.

Expert reports can be exchanged either simultaneously (i.e., at the same time) or sequentially, in which case the claimant’s expert will serve their report and the defendant’s expert will then serve a report responding to that report. Sequential exchange often makes sense when the claimant’s case has not been set out in detail in their statements of case, meaning the defendant needs to see the claimant’s expert evidence in order to know the case it is required to meet.

As with witness statements, if a party wishes to challenge the evidence provided by one of the other side’s experts in an expert report, they are required to do so during their oral cross-examination of the expert at trial.

Pre-trial Review

The pre-trial review is a second case management conference that takes place in advance of trial.

Before the hearing, the parties will try to agree directions for the trial, including the timetable for examining factual witnesses and experts and any bespoke directions, for example, for a particular witness to be permitted to give evidence remotely rather than in person. At the hearing, the court will resolve any disputed issues.

Trial

The trial is the culmination of the proceedings. Trials are relatively rare; most claims settle beforehand given the significant expense and risk associated with pursuing a case to trial.

The running order in a trial is generally as follows:

• Opening legal submissions (written and then oral)
• Oral cross-examination of factual witnesses
• Oral cross-examination of experts
• Closing legal submissions (written and then oral)

Trials vary significantly in length. A straightforward case might involve a trial of only a couple of days; trials in more complex cases can last weeks or even months.

Practical tips for new claims

If you are commencing or defending a new claim and proceedings have not yet been issued, consider the following:

• If you are the claimant, take time to prepare a comprehensive letter before action and consider instructing lawyers to assist you at an early stage. Well-drafted pre-action correspondence can often result in an early settlement and save costs in the long run. If you are the defendant, note that a pre-action settlement may also be in your interests and that any failure to engage meaningfully at a pre-action stage can result in adverse costs consequences if proceedings are later issued.
• If you are the claimant, consider whether there is a limitation deadline in the near future. This is crucial as failure to issue a claim before the deadline is likely to mean it is barred. If a deadline is imminent, you may need to issue proceedings to protect your position, even if pre-action correspondence remains ongoing.
• If you are the claimant or defendant, take steps to preserve any relevant documents. This includes documents in your own possession, but also those in the possession of employees and any third parties holding documents on your behalf (for example, lawyers and accountants). The outcome in many cases rests on the documents, and the courts can draw adverse inferences when documents are destroyed. Preserving documents is therefore key.

While the High Court claims process is structured and rule-driven, it is also flexible and shaped by the court’s overarching aim of achieving a just outcome at proportionate cost.

For businesses and individuals involved in a dispute, early engagement, careful analysis and a clear strategy are often the difference between a controlled resolution and a protracted, costly process. Our expert team is equipped to best guide you through each stage, moving you towards a comprehensive and successful outcome.

This insight is one of a series of Checkmate articles exploring the core themes that underpin modern commercial disputes, from post-acquisition claims to shareholder conflicts and directors’ duties.

To access the full guide and build a broader understanding of the risks and strategic considerations across these areas, visit here.