Overview

In a recent judgment in Target Insurance Company Limited v Nerico Brothers Limited & Lee Cheuk Fung Jerff [2025] HKCA 1024 the Court of Appeal has clarified that a director can be made personally liable for the costs incurred by a company under their control and that unreasonably opposes its winding up.

Background

This is the message the courts are sending to office holders seeking approval of their fees. In two recent English High Court decisions, both handed down by HHJ Cawson KC, the courts clearly expect office-holders, as fiduciaries, to produce a sufficient and proportionate level of information to justify the level of fees being claimed.

The question of whether it is competent for the court to order a retrospective administration order has been the subject of much debate before the English courts. However, until now, there have been no reported Scottish decisions dealing with the point.

Shareholder disputes can often be complex and emotionally charged, particularly in small or family-owned companies where personal relationships and business interests are deeply intertwined. When such disputes reach an impasse, the law provides several mechanisms for resolution. In particular, disgruntled shareholders have the ability to bring statutory based claims against the company.

When individuals and certain entities (such as partnerships, trusts and other unincorporated bodies) have debts that they are unable to repay to their creditors, they may consider or be faced with bankruptcy, which is known as sequestration in Scotland. However, sequestration is just one avenue. Alternative statutory debt solutions are available, which can provide breathing space and allow debts to be repaid over time, without creditor pressure.

In the recent decision in Blockchain Group Company Limited (in liquidation) v. PKF Hong Kong Limited¹, Le Pichon DHCJ decided that despite an error resulting in a protective writ naming the defendant as a limited company and formerly a firm, the relevant provisions to amend a party’s name could not be used to essentially replace the limited company with the firm.

Whilst most people would hope it could never happen to them, in our experience it often can. As such it pays to be prepared.

Landlords might be starting to feel a little uneasy given the news that Superdry is considering a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). Superdry is reportedly working with accountants to hash out a plan that will likely involve shutting down certain stores and cutting rent liabilities. The accountants instructed will be exploring whether either a CVA or a Restructuring Plan - both of which are processes which allow businesses to seek to reduce their liabilities to creditors – would be appropriate.

What exactly is a CVA?

The recent judgment in Re Proman International Limited¹ reaffirms the court's stance on the suitability of liquidators and the standards of disclosure required of them.

We have recently published a few blogs on the hot topic of company insolvencies, including more specifically about: