Insights

Recent developments.

Short notes on recent judgments and changes in the law affecting disputes, fraud, enforcement, companies and tax. Each note links to its source.

October 2026Civil Fraud & Asset Recovery

Post-judgment freezing order against VietJet over judgment debts of about US$250 million

FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation JSC [2026] EWHC 2633 (Comm)

The Commercial Court (Saini J) granted a worldwide freezing order after judgment against VietJet, a publicly listed Vietnamese airline that owes about US$250 million under a series of English judgments. The court found a real risk of dissipation, based on recent transactions that appeared to move essentially all the value of the airline’s order book of future aircraft to an associated party for illusory consideration.

Obtaining judgment is only part of the task. Where a debtor moves value out of reach, a post-judgment freezing order can preserve the position while enforcement proceeds.

Source: Blackstone Chambers

October 2026Commercial Litigation

The Chancery Division becomes the Business and Property Division

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2026 (SI 2026/817)

From 1 October 2026 the Chancery Division of the High Court is renamed the Business and Property Division, and the Commercial Court, Admiralty Court, Circuit Commercial Courts and Technology and Construction Court sit within it. The renaming is made by the Senior Courts (Transfer, Amendment and Consequential Provision) Order 2026, and these rules update the CPR to match, including by referring to the President of the Business and Property Division. Proceedings already issued continue as if started in the corresponding court or list.

The same rules add a new CPR 62.10A on permission to appeal decisions under the Arbitration Act 1996 where the deciding court’s permission is required. The application is made to that court at the hearing, or within 14 days of a decision made without one. Court documents and correspondence should now use the new names.

Source: legislation.gov.uk

August 2026Insolvency

Statutory demand on a personal guarantee survives cross-claims

Doubtfire v Horrell [2026] EWHC 2173 (Ch)

Chief ICC Judge Briggs refused to set aside a statutory demand served on a director under his personal guarantee of a company’s loan. The director relied on cross-claims in defamation and conspiracy, and argued that the guarantee had been obtained by duress or undue influence. The defamation claim failed for lack of evidence of serious harm, and the conspiracy claim was neither shown to be genuine nor quantified, so neither could be shown to equal or exceed the debt. The duress case was a bare assertion contradicted by the documents.

A difference between the sum in the original guarantee demand and the sum claimed did not justify setting the statutory demand aside, although the creditor was expected to explain it. A debtor who wants a demand set aside needs evidence, not a list of objections.

Source: 33 Bedford Row

July 2026Tax

Autumn Budget to be delivered on 28 October 2026

The Chancellor, John Healey, has confirmed that his first Budget will be delivered on Wednesday 28 October 2026, with an economic and fiscal forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility published the same day.

Tax changes can take effect from the moment they are announced. Transactions and restructurings in progress should be reviewed against the Budget date rather than assumed to benefit from a period of grace.

Source: Ross Martin Tax Consultancy

July 2026Corporate

A director’s honest belief does not satisfy the duty of good faith on its own

Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] UKSC 21

A director given exclusive conduct of a company’s exit concealed from the board and the other shareholders that he was pursuing a delay, which he believed would produce a better return. The Supreme Court held that he breached his duty under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006. A genuine belief that a course of action serves the company does not answer a claim where the director has used deception or disloyalty to pursue it, and the court does not need to apply the Ivey test of dishonesty to find a breach of the duty of loyalty.

The court upheld an order that the minority shareholder’s shares be bought out at their undiscounted pro rata value as at 31 December 2019, the date by which the exit should have taken place.

Source: HSF Kramer

May 2026Civil Fraud & Asset Recovery

Freezing orders: the ordinary course of business exception can be narrowed

Just-Us Air SRL v Fibula Air Travel SRL [2026] EWHC 1270 (Comm)

Continuing a post-judgment worldwide freezing order at the return date, the Commercial Court kept the standard exception permitting dealings in the ordinary and proper course of business, but attached conditions to it. The respondent must notify certain dealings, transfers to specified related parties are prohibited, and although it may spend a reasonable sum on legal advice it must disclose where that money comes from.

The exceptions in the model order are a starting point. Where the evidence points to a particular risk, an applicant can ask the court to tailor them.

Source: Brick Court Chambers

May 2026Commercial Litigation

No bill to reverse PACCAR in the King’s Speech

Following R (PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28

In PACCAR the Supreme Court held that litigation funding agreements under which the funder takes a percentage of damages can be damages-based agreements, which exposed many existing agreements to challenge. In December 2025 the Government accepted Civil Justice Council recommendations to reverse that effect for the future and to introduce proportionate regulation of funding.

The King’s Speech on 13 May 2026 did not include the bill. Until legislation is passed, PACCAR remains the law, and funding for claims, including fraud and asset recovery claims, needs to be structured with it in mind.

Source: Akin Gump

March 2026Tax

Discovery assessments: each loss of tax is tested on its own

HMRC v Harte [2026] UKUT 112 (TCC)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC’s appeal and held that the conduct condition in section 29(4) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the time limits in section 36 apply separately to each loss of tax within a discovery assessment. A deliberate error in one part of a return does not extend the 20-year time limit to unrelated errors that were careless or that arose despite reasonable care.

Amounts outside the applicable time limit, or not brought about by careless or deliberate conduct, were removed from the assessments. Anyone facing an extended-time assessment should test each element separately.

Source: Find Case Law, The National Archives

March 2026Cross-Border Enforcement

No state immunity defence to registration of ICSID awards

Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl; Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd [2026] UKSC 9

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a state party to the ICSID Convention cannot rely on state immunity to resist registration in England of an ICSID award made against it. By agreeing in Article 54 of the Convention that awards will be recognised and enforced, the state has submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts for that purpose within section 2(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978.

The decision removes an obstacle at the recognition stage. It does not affect immunity from execution, which award creditors must still address when they seek to recover against a state’s assets.

Source: Gibson Dunn

February 2026Corporate

No limitation period for unfair prejudice petitions

THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2026] UKSC 6

By a majority, the Supreme Court held that petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 are not subject to the time limits in the Limitation Act 1980, even where the relief sought is a payment of money. The decision reverses the Court of Appeal.

Delay still matters: the court may refuse relief where a petitioner has delayed without good reason. Directors and majority shareholders cannot rely on the passing of six or 12 years as a defence in itself, and should keep records that explain past decisions.

Source: CMS

These notes summarise judgments and announcements as at the dates shown and were last reviewed in October 2026. They are for general information only and are not legal or tax advice. The law may have changed since publication, and links to third-party websites are provided for reference only.