Oral evidence part 2: What if a witness doesn’t turn up to court?

Costs in tax litigation often catch even experienced advisors off guard. Unlike other areas of civil litigation, where costs consequences are ever-present and a continuous strategic consideration, proceedings before the First-tier Tax Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) are often approached with less emphasis on potential costs exposure.

Privacy and confidentiality in tax cases have always been important, particularly where the taxpayer is someone in the public eye. Whilst a tax enquiry, or indeed litigation, does not mean that the taxpayer has ‘done something wrong’, there are certain negative inferences made by the public and media which could impact future opportunities for the individual or corporate involved.

One of the benefits of an appeal before the First-tier Tax Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) is that it is seen as less formal than an appeal in the Higher Courts.  However, the Court of Appeal's recent ruling in HMRC v Medpro Healthcare [2026] is a reminder in case it was needed that deadlines matter in tax disputes and securing permission for a late appeal is not guaranteed.

Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 provides one of the most important protections available for shareholders - allowing a shareholder to apply to the court by petition for relief where “the company’s affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself),…”. These claims are often termed as “corporate divorce”.

The 2026 Winter Olympic Games in Italy are in full swing, showcasing athletic excellence on the world stage. At the time of writing, British hopes remain high despite some agonisingly close finishes, with Kirsty Muir, Mia Brookes, Jen Dodds and Bruce Mouat all delivering thrilling performances that placed them just outside the medals.

2025 was a notable year for arbitration in England & Wales, marked by legislative change, technological advances, and significant judicial developments that continue to shape the arbitration landscape.

2025 produced many interesting decisions in trust and estate disputes in the courts of England & Wales. We consider just a few of those key decisions below, which illustrate that the outcome in cases of this nature remains highly dependent on the particular facts of the case and available evidence.  

There has been a trend in recent years of seeking to use data protection claims as a means of obtaining redress for reputational harm, which would traditionally have been sought through defamation proceedings.

This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of October - December 2025.

In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.

In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.

The recent Supreme Court judgment in King Crude Carriers SA and others v Ridgebury November LLC marks a significant development in English contract law.

The decision arose from an appeal against an arbitration award and addresses the fundamental question of whether the so called “deemed fulfilment” principle established by the 1881 Scottish Appeal case of Mackay v Dick exists in English Law.

In 2025, two High Court rulings, Apollo XI Ltd v Nexedge Markets Ltd and J&J Snack Foods Corp & ICEE Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd highlighted the strict nature of the duty of full and frank disclosure in without notice applications.

In both cases, the court discharged freezing injunctions after finding that the applicants had failed to meet the requisite standard of candour and fair presentation. These decisions serve as a clear reminder that when seeking urgent relief without notifying the other party, applicants must present all material facts - including those that may undermine their case, and ensure the court receives a balanced and accurate account.              

We sometimes receive enquiries from people asking whether it is possible to challenge a gift which has been made previously.

Of course, giving someone a ‘lifetime gift’ (i.e. where money or assets are given away during a person’s lifetime) can be an efficient estate planning mechanism but, may be subject to challenge if the donor lacked the capacity to make an informed choice or, has been unduly influenced into making a gift.

We usually see this within the scope of a gift of money or a property, but similar principals apply to collectables and other chattels.

Claims involving digital assets (including crypto assets) have become relatively common in the English Courts over the last five years and, as a result, the main areas of disagreement between the parties to those disputes are starting to emerge. A major theme is the methodology that should be applied to the tracing and following of digital assets.

Assets are typically placed in a trust for legitimate purposes, such as safeguarding wealth for future generations. However, arguments that a trust is in fact a “sham” created to hide the true ownership of assets often arise in the context of divorce litigation, bankruptcy/insolvency where a creditor seeks to argue that a trust is a pretence seeking to shield assets from creditors, or in estate disputes, where beneficiaries look to bring assets of the deceased back into an estate.

Where the identity of a person or group of people responsible for a fraud is not known, the courts have recognised that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow a claimant to issue proceedings and obtain an injunction (both interim and final) against such individuals. These injunctions are referred to as “persons unknown injunctions” and they have become increasingly prominent in recent years.

Kingsley Napley is pleased to have acted for the successful claimants in proceedings before the High Court. The decision addresses a long-standing uncertainty in company law: if a provision of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 06”) carries a criminal penalty for breach, does that mean no civil remedy is available? The court’s ruling sheds light on how such provisions should be understood and what consequences companies and directors may face when compliance falls short.

One of the most alarming aspects of falling victim to fraud is knowing where to start. It is very common for a victim to know almost nothing about what has happened, except for the fact that they have been scammed and the assets have gone. However, there are options available even if you don’t know the identity of the fraudster and the assets have, apparently, disappeared.

In a judgment handed down today, the Court agreed to appoint two additional conflict liquidators from Grant Thornton in the Travelex liquidation following an application made by Kingsley Napley’s client Rawbank S.A. (“Rawbank”).

Rawbank is the largest bank in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) and is an unsecured creditor of Travelex Bank Notes Ltd (“Travelex”) (part of the Travelex group of companies) for over £48m.