Company law

Wilberforce has a strong reputation for its work across all areas of company law, including financial assistance, shareholder disputes and directors’ duties issues. It has particular expertise on high-value corporate reorganisations and on offshore transactional advice and litigation.

The complementary expertise of all our members in equity and trusts provides the framework for a deeper understanding of the issues ensuing from breaches of the fiduciary duties owed to companies, equitable compensation, and the proprietary remedies arising out of wrongful disposals of company assets.

Our members offer expert advice and advocacy in relation to a wide range of company law issues such as:

  • Shareholder disputes
  • 994 petitions (under Companies Act 2006)
  • Derivative actions
  • Share and business sale agreements
  • Breach of warranty disputes
  • Shareholder agreements
  • Financial assistance
  • Directors’ duties and negligence
  • Disqualification of directors
  • Restoration of companies to the register
  • OEICs
  • Corporate insolvency – winding up, administration, CVA, receivership
  • Accounting/audit negligence

Instructions come from large, multinational corporations, through to medium sized and small companies and their directors and shareholders. A number of our members have particular experience of company law disputes in other jurisdictions, including most of the principle offshore jurisdictions, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Rankings and recognition

Wilberforce is ranked as a leading company law set in both Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500. Coverage below.

Chambers & Partners 2025: Wilberforce Chambers represents an excellent choice of set for company matters. Its barristers frequently represent clients faced with domestic and cross-border shareholder disputes, issues of directors’ duties and breaches of fiduciary duty, among other matters. Its reputation for handling offshore work is particularly strong. Notable recent instructions include: Garafalo v Crisp; Re Valorem Holdings, an unfair prejudice and breach of directors’ duties case involving the breach of government sanctions; and Say Chong Lim v Francis Ong et al, which involves the intersection of company law and fraud relating to a high-value property portfolio.

Legal 500 2025: Wilberforce Chambers ‘offers strength and depth across the board in all company and Chancery matters, with approachable and ferociously bright barristers‘. The set has a solid track record in advising on cross-border company law matters, and continues to advising on cases involving directors’ duties issues, financial assistance and shareholder disputes. Lexa Hilliard KC is sought after for her strong track record in advising on high-profile shareholder disputes. Thomas Grant KC is appearing in proceedings in the Cayman Islands concerning the value of minority shareholdings in Chinese social media company Weibo.

Chambers Bar Awards 2023: Wilberforce wins Set of the Year and Chancery Set of the Year

Chambers Bar Awards 2023: Tim Penny KC wins Chancery Silk of the Year

The Legal 500 Bar Awards 2022: Wilberforce wins Chancery Set of the Year

Chambers Bar Awards 2022: Clare Stanley KC wins Chancery Silk of the Year

Chambers Bar Awards 2021: Thomas Grant KC wins Chancery Silk of the Year

Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2024: Sri Carmichael wins Chancery Junior of the Year

Notable cases

AFRINIC v Cloud Innovation [2024]

[2024] SCJ 473

AFRINIC is trying to oust Cloud Innovation as a member and to forfeit its valuable internet resources. AFRINIC (through a former director) sought to remove the Official Receiver that had been appointed by the Commercial Court to manage and supervise the company AFRINIC pending the determination of Cloud’s Innovation’s shareholder oppression claim. Cloud Innovation successfully opposed the removal application arguing that AFRINIC had no lawfully appointed director in place, an election to appoint directors required to be held and in all the circumstances it was just for the Official Receiver to continue in his role.

Read the full judgment

Magomedov & Ors v Kuzovkov & Ors [2024]

[2024] EWHC 2527 (Comm)

The Commercial Court has rejected an application by the Claimants in the Magomedov litigation – a $14 billion claim concerning alleged unlawful means conspiracies and bribery – for a Norwich Pharmacal order against three financial services companies, following the hearing of jurisdiction challenges and of the Claimants’ substantive application for Norwich Pharmacal relief, at a two-day hearing before Jacobs J.

Read the full judgment

Filatona Trading Limited and Oleg Deripaska v Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP [2024]

[2024] EWHC 2573 (Comm)

Mr Justice Calver acceded to the Claimants’ application for a Norwich Pharmacal order where the defendant law firm had obtained from an unnamed business consultancy a report which was subsequently deployed in s.68 proceedings against the Claimants with a view to setting aside an arbitration award. The report was subsequently revealed to be a forgery. The judgment contains a very interesting analysis of the circumstances in which a law firm might become amenable to a Norwich Pharmacal order and the extent to which privilege might bar such relief.

Read the full judgment

In the matter of TFKT True Holdings [2024]

On 3 October 2024, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (FSD) granted a case management stay of a just and equitable winding up petition in the case of Re TFKT True Holdings pending the resolution of separate proceedings in Hong Kong between the same parties to the petition. The judgment of Hon Justice David Doyle contains a comprehensive survey of the now very well-developed Cayman law on case management stays, which has become a very important aspect of Cayman procedural law.

Read the full judgment

Garofalo v Crisp; Re Valorem Holdings Ltd [2024]

[2024] EWHC 1737 (ChD)

Re Valorem Holdings Ltd represents a groundbreaking developing in the nature of injunctive relief that the court is prepared to grant to protect the rights of minority shareholders in s.994 petitions. In this case, the court was prepared to change the constitution of the board by way of interim relief to remove the respondent to the petition (the CEO) from the board and install the petitioner’s management team as directors on a without notice application. That decision was upheld on the return date.

Read the full judgment

Re BHS Group Ltd [2024]

High street retailer BHS’s collapse was one of the highest-profile insolvencies of recent years, with outstanding debts of more than ÂŁ1bn. The claims against the directors were for alleged wrongful trading, misfeasance, and breach of statutory and fiduciary duties. Mr Justice Leech’s 533-page judgment focused on 2nd respondent, Lennart Henningson, and 3rd respondent, former BHS general counsel Dominic Chandler.

Read the full judgment

Gordiy v Dorofejeva & another [2024]

The Claimant advanced fraud claims in deceit, the tort of causing loss by unlawful means and unlawful means conspiracy arising out of the failure of a share purchase agreement. The judgment addresses the Second Defendant’s challenge to jurisdiction on the basis that the claims did not satisfy the merits threshold that the Claimant had to show a real prospect of success on the claim. Having considered the contemporaneous documentation, the judge found that the Claimant had no real prospect of establishing the factual allegations that underlay her claims. Permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was therefore refused. The case shows that, in appropriate circumstances, a court will find that a claim has no real prospect of success even where allegations of fraud are made.

Read the full judgment

Navigator Equities Ltd & Vladimir Chernukhin v Oleg Deripaska [2024]

The claimants brought an application seeking to commit the defendant for breach of an undertaking he had given to the court. At a trial in March 2023 HHJ Pelling KC, sitting in the Commercial Court, dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ appeal, emphasising the need to focus on the breach as actually alleged in the application notice and the importance of procedural fairness when a defendant is facing a committal application.

Read the full judgment

Derma Med Ltd v Ally [2024]

An important Court of Appeal case. The first instance judge had set aside and refused to continue a without notice non-compete and confidentiality injunction on grounds of alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure and the supposed adequacy of damages. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and made some important comments concerning (1) the need for “a sense of proportion in complex cases” when considering lack of fair presentation complaints and (2), more generally, about the appropriateness of interim injunctions in non-compete cases.

Read the full judgment

Lim and others v Ong [2024]

The Defendant was sentenced to 22 months immediate imprisonment in respect of a vast array of contempts of court, including dealing and dissipating assets in breach of a worldwide freezing order, providing inaccurate ancillary asset disclosure inflating his true asset position, providing false affidavit evidence seeking to justify dissipation, and 59 breaches of the standard form weekly living allowance.

The underlying claim pertained to a property investment fraud perpetrated by the first defendant, and orchestrated through a group of companies (some, but not all of which, were defendants to the proceedings). The defendants were the subject of a wide ranging worldwide freezing order and other injunctions including a quia timet injunction with respect to directorships of certain SPVs.

Read the full judgment

Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates Ltd [2024]

A three-week trial of an unfair prejudice petition concerning a waste management company. The judgment addresses in detail issues of perennial interest to the company lawyer: the meaning of unfair prejudice; the interaction between the s.994 jurisdiction and shareholders’ agreements; the appropriate relief to a minority shareholder; the date of valuation; and whether the shareholding should be valued taking into account a minority discount.

Read the full judgment

Lazarichev & Ors v Lyndou [2024]

This case presented what is believed to be the first opportunity to consider the question of whether “resident” within the meaning of r25.13(2)(a) means “lawfully resident”.

Read the full judgment

Knell v Van Loo [2023]

This case involved a 7-day trial of an unfair prejudice petition, followed by a one-day quantum hearing. The petition was brought by minority shareholders in respect of two substantial property developments; at trial the Deputy Judge found numerous incidents of unfair prejudice, including a failure on behalf of the board to exercise valuable contractual rights held by the Company. Whilst the Company was heavily balance-sheet insolvent, the Deputy Judge granted a buy-out order in the Petitioners’ favour, on the basis that the Company be valued as if the unfairly prejudicial acts had not occurred, and, in addition, that part of the Company’s debt be ignored for the purposes of the buy-out order.

Read the full judgment

CLO HoldCo Limited v Highland CLO Funding Limited [2023]

The Royal Court of Guernsey dismisses a substantial unfair prejudice application, which represents a key aspect of multi-faceted ongoing litigation connected with the bankruptcy in the US of once high-flying billion-dollar investment firm Highland Capital Management LP. 

The judgment contains interesting discussion of (i) whether breach of a duty to act in good faith necessarily amounts to bad faith, and (ii) the circumstances in which equitable considerations may have a place in governing the proper conduct of the affairs of a company.

Read the full judgment

Say Chong Lim v Francis Ong et al [2023]

A claim relating to a property portfolio worth in excess of ÂŁ50 million pertains to an alleged fraud perpetrated by defendant over a number of years through a complex company structure. The case was commenced by worldwide freezing order.

Read the full judgment

In the matter of Avivo Group [2022]

Acting for the successful respondent in one of the first reported decisions in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in this important case on when the Court will appoint inspectors to examine into and report on the affairs of a company at the behest of a minority shareholder.  Although a case on s.64 of the Cayman Companies Act, similar statutory provisions are to be found in legislation throughout the Commonwealth, and hopefully this case will be a useful precedent in those jurisdictions too.

Read the full judgment

Re BHS Group Limited [2022]

Liquidators’ claim against former directors of BHS for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and wrongful trading.

 

In the Matter of Olalekan Akinyanmi v Lekoil Ltd [2022]

This case shows the Cayman Islands Grand Court applying the rules of natural justice to require an applicant for ex parte relief to share with the other party all documents shown to the judge. It is also a useful illustration of the court evaluating the balance of convenience and refusing an injunction to restrain a party from implementing a challenged contract for the allotment of shares, which would have the effect of diluting existing shareholdings.

Read the full judgment

Al Jaber and others v Mitchell and others [2021]

A keenly awaited Court of Appeal decision which considers the application of the doctrine of immunity from suit to statements given by a former director during an examination under section 236 Insolvency Act 1986.

Read the full judgment

Re Jabac Finance Ltd [2021]

Combined proceedings for breach of statutory duty, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair prejudice under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

 

Transomas Ltd (2) Transomas Investment Limited v (1) Kheri Trading (2) Tarnjit Singh [2021]

This case concerns a family dispute, and alleged efforts made by one son of a patriarch to remove value from the family business to prejudice of, in particular, his sister.

Floreat Investment Management Limited v Benjamin Churchill and others [2021]

A high stakes fraudulent breach of fiduciary duty claim which is analytically challenging due to the complex corporate structures involved, the interplay with contractual arrangements and the impact of this on the corporate governance and the obligations of the key parties to the various companies.

Oberman v Collins [2021]

This case involved an unfair prejudice petition relating to the ownership of a company forming an ÂŁ8m property portfolio. It has potentially significant ramifications for unmarried couples who jointly conduct a business together.

Re Force India (Formula 1) [2019]

A consortium led by Canadian billionaire Lawrence Stroll, father of F1 racing driver Lance Stroll, acquired the business and assets of the Force India racing team. The transaction was exceptionally complex, and ground breaking in that asset purchases were historically prohibited by the FIA.

New Look Retailers Limited [2019]

Advising the guarantor of rent due on leases taken out by New Look after the New Look CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement).

Sky Stream Corp v Alexander Pleshakov [2018]

Dispute over ownership of 20 per cent of the shareholding of Transaero Airlines (one of Russia’s largest airlines). Acting for the claimant in both the BVI Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal.

Read the full judgment

Paylor v Bowers [2018]

Contested worldwide freezing order proceedings in the context of fraudulent breach of statutory and fiduciary duty and tracing claims against the struck-off directors of two companies involved in multi-million pound fraudulent “Ponzi” schemes straddling jurisdictions such as the UAE, Brazil and Panama.

Read the full judgment

DE Shaw Oculus Portfolios LLC v Orient Express Hotels Limited

In the High Court in Bermuda. Orient Express Hotels Limited successfully argued that it was lawful under the laws of Bermuda for a publicly-quoted company to be controlled by its own wholly owned subsidiary.

Read the full judgment

ABC Company (SPV) v J & Co

An application by an investor in a split portfolio company which had suspended redemptions of a minority of its portfolios to wind up the company.

Planck v Tinsel Group and Vitol Holdings

A shareholder dispute proceeding in Rotterdam concerning a significant stake in one of the world’s largest energy traders.

Apex Global Management Limited v FiCall Limited and Others

A multi-million pound shareholders’ dispute between the shareholders of FiCall.

Re ICP Strategies Cayman Islands

Acting for the liquidator landmark decision enabling foreign courts to rely on fraudulent trading provisions of the Cayman Companies Law.

Insights View all thought leadership

  1. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Supreme Court hands down judgment in LA Micro Group Inc v LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd and others [2024]

    Company law, Commercial disputes, Trusts, probate and estates: contentious

    Clare Stanley KC
    Wednesday 11 December 2024

    View more
  2. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    The Privy Council confirms that shareholders have a personal claim against a company for improper exercises of power

    International / offshore, Company law

    Thomas Lowe KC | Tara Taylor
    Thursday 14 November 2024

    View more
  3. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Receiver restored – an interim remedy in shareholder disputes

    Company law, Commercial disputes, International / offshore

    Nikki Singla KC
    Thursday 7 November 2024

    View more
  4. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Court rejects application for Norwich Pharmacal order in the Magomedov litigation

    Commercial disputes, Civil fraud and asset recovery, Company law

    Bobby Friedman | Rachael Earle
    Thursday 24 October 2024

    View more

View all thought leadership

Related Barristers