The High Court has handed down its judgment in a preliminary issues trial in Yodel Delivery Network Ltd v Corlett & Ors on 19 December 2025, dismissing counterclaims by Shift Global Holdings Ltd (Shift) and Corja Holdings Ltd (Corja) for specific performance of purported share warrant rights, which they had said entitled them to more than 54% of Yodel’s issued share capital in the battle for control of the home delivery company.

In the recent case of Mitchell and another (Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (In Liquidation)) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber [2025] UKSC 43, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of fiduciary duties owed by directors and controllers of companies following the commencement of liquidation. The Court determined that a director whose statutory powers have ceased may still owe fiduciary duties if he purports to exercise authority over the company’s assets and intermeddles with them dishonestly.

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

key takeaways

Mitchell v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber (No 2) [2025] UKSC 43

Introduction

The landmark decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Stevanovich v Richardson¹provides authoritative guidance on the proper interpretation of “person aggrieved” under section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act, which deals with standing to challenge a liquidator’s decision.

In Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 951, the English Court of Appeal has ruled that in an application for recognition at common law of a foreign insolvency, a respondent to that application may have standing to oppose the recognition even if they are not a creditor. The fact that other relief is sought against them, which is contingent on recognition of the foreign insolvency, can and usually will suffice to give them standing to oppose the recognition.

Background

Investors or companies may, as part of their wider investment thesis or business plan, make distressed asset purchases to strategically acquire assets which they may otherwise not be able to conveniently or affordably obtain. While the face value of the asset purchased may be lower than that acquired in a “solvent” transaction, purchasers should be aware that such acquisitions carry a heavy tail liability risk, which may take the form of a potential clawback as a transaction at an undervalue.

The UK Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment in Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Others[1] in which it considered the scope of section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986, specifically whether those beyond the small group of individuals with controlling or m

The Supreme Court has handed down a decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and othersv Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18, which clarifies the parties who ar