The High Court’s recent decision in Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) regarding WhatsApp communications may cause you to reconsider whether to add a moniker to your messages. While this decision related to s53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA”) the principles set out in the judgment have wider-ranging significance, as they apply to any requirement for a document to be signed.
Background
The High Court’s recent decision in Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) regarding WhatsApp communications may cause you to reconsider whether to add a moniker to your messages. While this decision related to s53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA”) the principles set out in the judgment have wider-ranging significance, as they apply to any requirement for a document to be signed.
Background
As 2025 draws to a close, this newsletter reviews key developments that have shaped the commercial disputes landscape over the past year and offers our views on significant English court decisions. We then look ahead to the trends likely to define 2026. We also reflect on another productive and successful year for Hausfeld’s Commercial Disputes team.
HOW DID 2025 CHANGE THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE?
Financial services
On 5 October 2022, judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA (Sequana) and others. The judgment is significant to company directors, insolvency practitioners and litigators as it clarifies how directors should comply with their duties to creditors in the context of insolvency.
On 5 October 2022 a judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA (Sequana) and others.This judgment relates to an insolvency dispute between BTI, the assignee of AWA’s claims, and Sequana. Principally, it concerns which entity should make the payment for an outstanding liability incurred by AWA, arising out of the National Cash Register Company’s (NCR) pollution of the Fox River in Wisconsin. Through a series of restructurings, AWA became liable to indemnify British American Tobacco (BAT) for these costs.
On 28 March 2022, the Insolvency Service announced the end to all COVID-19 temporary measures, effective from 1 April 2022. Most measures had previously been revoked with the last of these measures being the restriction on winding up companies. This restriction was partially lifted in October last year in the course of the gradual phasing out of the restriction on winding up and it has now been lifted in its entirety. This could well lead to a significant increase in creditor activity following the inability to pursue most winding up petitions for a period of approximately two years.
2020 was a difficult and uncertain year, with unprecedented challenges across the globe, changing the world as we know it. At the start of 2021, the country remained in lockdown and Brexit materialised - with a deal - posing a further seismic shift. It remains unclear what the full effect of either will be on the economy. On the plus side, the active vaccination programme may offer us a route out of the pandemic. But one thing is clear, lawyers are resilient and our flexible fee structures and case funding options prove more important than ever. We are here, ready to help.
The new Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction gives much-needed clarity for insolvency proceedings in the Business and Property Courts during the COVID-19 pandemic.
General provisions
A key principle of English law is that double recovery of losses should be avoided. In company law a related concept has emerged, known as the principle of reflective loss. This prevents a shareholder in a company from suing a wrongdoer for the reduction in the value of shares or distributions when the loss suffered is a ‘reflection’ of a loss sustained by the company. The intention is to ensure equality between shareholders as a whole and to underline that each shareholder’s investment follows the fortunes of the company.
As noted in our previous Perspectives Article, in March 2020, the UK Government announced the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions contained in s.214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.