Issuing a debt claim may seem straightforward, but in practice, it is often slow, can be expensive and recovery of money is uncertain. As a result, many landlords are reconsidering their options, with commercial lease forfeiture coming back into focus as a more decisive alternative.

Suing for Arrears

On paper, a claim for rent arrears is straightforward. However, there are risks:

Cost vs recovery: Legal costs can quickly become disproportionate. Even where a lease includes a contractual indemnity, recovery is not guaranteed given the court retains discretion on costs and may not award the full amount incurred and, ultimately, whether those legal fees are recovered depends on the ability of the tenant to pay the judgment debt.

• Delay: tenants can and do defend claims on spurious grounds (e.g., alleged disrepair) and defended claims can take a long time to resolve (in excess of 12 months), during which arrears will continue to accrue.
• Enforcement risk: A judgment is only as good as the tenant’s ability to pay. Enforcement can be uncertain and further cost is often required.
• Insolvency exposure: By the time judgment is obtained, the tenant may already be insolvent, leaving the landlord as an unsecured creditor.

A “win” on paper does not necessarily translate into cash recovery.

Why Forfeiture is Often the Better Strategic Move

Forfeiture offers a different outcome – control rather than recovery. It offers:

• Immediate possession: The landlord regains the asset and can look to re-let to a stronger tenant.
• Loss containment: It may be commercially preferable to stop the bleeding rather than pursue historic arrears.
• Leverage: The threat of forfeiture can prompt payment or meaningful engagement from tenants.

In a weaker market, these advantages are increasingly relevant.

Forfeiture Risks

Forfeiture needs to be handled carefully. The following are consideration:

• Waiver: acknowledging the existence of the lease by, for example, accepting or demanding rent after a breach can inadvertently waive the right to forfeit.
• Relief from forfeiture: Courts can grant relief from forfeiture if the tenant pays what is due, frustrating the landlord’s objective.
• Method of re-entry: Peaceable re-entry is quick but carries risk whereas court proceedings are safer but slower.
• Void risk: Taking back possession only works if the property can be re-let on acceptable terms and in the interim the landlord will assume responsibility for business rates liability

Conclusion

In a tougher economic climate, landlords need to look beyond legal rights and focus on commercial outcomes. Suing for rent arrears can seem the obvious route but forfeiture, if used strategically, can offer a faster and more decisive solution.

The law concerning forfeiture is, however, unintuitive and full of trip-hazards. If you are dealing with tenant arrears or considering your enforcement options, our property litigation team can help you assess the most effective strategy.

With that sentiment in mind, this article is a reflection on how market shocks and the wider marketing volatility can influence the commercial litigation market and the types of dispute they tend to precipitate. We do not attempt to analyse how this latest episode of market turbulence affects specialized litigation markets in energy, shipping and commodities which is best left to practitioners in the field. We concern ourselves here with the broader relationship between adverse market conditions and general commercial disputes, looking at a few recent examples of the kinds of dispute that tend to arise.

Historical patterns: why market volatility leads to litigation

Market volatility has historically precipitated a rise in contentious behaviour. Periods of market volatility frequently lead to an increase in commercial litigation, as financial pressure exposes contractual weaknesses and misconduct. The specie of dispute is unsurprisingly influenced by the underlying market forces going awry, for example the spate of misselling cases that followed in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis or supply chain disputes following the 2020 pandemic. 

If there is one feature adverse market events share, it is the contraction in liquidity and tightening of credit conditions, creating acute economic pressures on entities and individuals. Likewise, if there is a pattern as to the types of disputes that follow on from those economic conditions, history shows battles are typically fought in the arenas of contract termination and renegotiation and that commercial fraud practitioners in particular can expect to feast on an increase in fraud and financial misconduct that tend to get unveiled during episodes of market turbulence.

How market volatility exposes fraud in financial markets

Market shocks and scandal tend to go hand in hand. In particular, market volatility often exposes financial misconduct where leverage, collateral or liquidity structures are placed under sudden stress. One well established mechanism by which wrongdoing is unveiled occurs in situations of over-leveraging. The market contexts in which this presents are many and varied, but in broad terms the basic features of this scenario concern lending against secured assets or collateral, with those that are tethered to assets traded in financial markets being particularly vulnerable.

Market Financial Solutions provides a good recent case study of how tightening credit conditions combined with other forces is ultimately revealing of fraud. MFS provided bridging loan and property finance, with that finance in turn being supported by wholesale lending from a consortium of banks including Barclays and Apollo. 

MFS’ issues came to light owing to a sector-specific tightening of credit conditions in private credit markets in turn triggered by wider concerns over underwriting standards, particularly in riskier lending situations. This led many lenders to review their portfolios and due diligence protocols. In the case of MFS and prompted by mounting concerns in private credit, the banks and credit funds funding MFS undertook such a review that revealed various financial malpractices within MFS. In the main this included so-called “double-pledging” (where the same property had been pledged to multiple banks) – the collateral shortfall (that is the shortfall in the value of the underlying securities versus the amount of lending outstanding) is thought to be nearly £1bn.  Irregular features of MFS’ business model and the particulars of the financial misconduct by its management continue to emerge. Indeed, recently issued creditor claims allege that MFS lent money to persons connected to MFS’ owner, Paresh Raka.No doubt there is more to come.

Another area where share price volatility and collapse is exposing of wrongdoing is in the realm of margin lending risk management. This is where an entity builds highly leveraged positions in the market and confronts a situation of falling share prices: when this happens banks make margin calls or call on additional posting of capital which if not complied with triggers investigations and enforcement action. 

Archegos Capital Management is a recent infamous example from across the pond of poor margin lending risk management that is unveiling of fraud against a backdrop of falling share prices. Archegos had taken leveraged positions in a portfolio of risky shares (including some “meme-like” stocks including Baidu and Tencent Music). When the stock prices declined a classic margin-call cascade ensued: a fire sale of the shares further degraded the value of those shares leading to more margin calls with the same result. This mechanism revealed the true scale of Archegos’ hitherto concealed leverage as well as share price manipulation by Archegos executives. The losses were in the billions and attracted criminal investigations as well as SEC enforcement action.

Impact on general commercial litigation

Pivoting away from the exotic world of structured finance, economic pressures can distort incentives in more prosaic legal contexts. Rapid cost inflation can erode (or at worst eliminate) profits and bottom lines, leaving parties confronted with the choice of either termination, renegotiation or trying to climb the steep slopes of a frustration claim. Supply contracts with unhedged long-term pricing mechanisms are particularly vulnerable. 

More cunning counterparties might exploit a situation of economic pressure to renegotiate more favourable terms, giving rise to the question: when does economic pressure exerted by one party on another cross the line into economic duress?  A good illustration of the distinction is the Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue in Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40. PIAC was facing claims of unpaid commission of circa £1.5m from a Birmingham based travel agent, Times Travel (UK) Ltd. PIAC terminated the contract with Times Travel, pulling the rug from under its business because of Times Travel’s dependency on its revenue stream with PIAC, being pretty much the sole provider of direct flights between the UK and Pakistan. 

PIAC offered to resurrect the contractual relationship on the basis that Times Travel sign a waiver in relation to its claims and agree to a new, much less favourable, commission regime. It did so, but subsequently brought a claim seeking damages for economic duress. The Supreme Court held that PIAC’s termination of the contract was lawful and while it had brought severe economic pressure to bear on Times Travel, it was “lawful economic duress” that did not found a claim.

Conclusion

These are unpredictable and disruptive times, and periods of market volatility frequently generate commercial litigation as financial pressure exposes legal and contractual risks.Contract formation is all about the allocation and management of risks, and certain market contexts require careful management of risks that are tethered to, and seek to provide insulation from, adverse market events. We will be keeping a watchful eye on the evolving situation in private credit markets in particular and how the contractual framework regulating the relationships within that sector holds up under what appears to be deteriorating conditions. 

English law thankfully has a highly developed and sophisticated toolkit of remedies that is adept at dealing with the myriad of disputes thrown its way in times of economic trouble. Sherrards Solicitors is well positioned to offer clients access to teams of specialist and agile litigators with expertise in English law and its broad range of remedies, whatever the market context.   

What Is a Multi-Jurisdictional Dispute?

A multi-jurisdictional dispute arises when a disagreement involves parties, assets, contracts, or events spread across two or more countries. This is increasingly common in modern commerce, particularly where businesses operate through international supply chains, have subsidiaries overseas, or enter contracts governed by foreign law.

These disputes often raise difficult questions:

• Which country’s courts have jurisdiction (i.e. the authority to hear the case)?
• Which country’s law applies to the substance of the dispute?
• Where can a judgment or award actually be enforced against the other party’s assets?

Getting these questions wrong can be costly — both in terms of wasted legal fees and unfavourable outcomes.

 

Why Multi-Jurisdictional Disputes Are So Challenging

1.    Parallel Proceedings

It is not uncommon for both sides to start proceedings in different countries at the same time, each hoping to gain a tactical advantage. This can lead to duplicated costs and inconsistent decisions from different courts.

2.    Conflicting Laws and Procedures

Different legal systems have different rules on everything from disclosure of documents to the types of evidence a court will accept. What is standard practice in England and Wales may be entirely unfamiliar — or even impermissible — in another jurisdiction.

3.    Enforcement Difficulties

Winning a case is only half the battle. If the other party’s assets are located abroad, you will need to enforce your judgment or arbitral award in that country. The ease of enforcement depends heavily on the treaties and agreements in place between the relevant states.

4.    Time and Cost

Coordinating legal teams across multiple jurisdictions increases both the complexity and the expense of a dispute. Without careful management, these costs can quickly outweigh the value of the claim itself.

 

Practical Steps for Managing Cross-Border Disputes

Choose the Right Forum Early

One of the most important decisions in any international dispute is where to bring your claim.

Consider:

• The strength of jurisdiction clauses in your contract: a well-drafted clause can provide certainty and prevent the other side from starting proceedings elsewhere.
• The enforceability of any judgment or award: for example, arbitral awards made under the New York Convention can be enforced in over 170 countries, making international arbitration an attractive option.
• The practical advantages of a particular forum: such as speed, the availability of interim relief (e.g. freezing orders), and the experience of local courts in handling complex commercial cases.

 

Coordinate Your Legal Teams

If proceedings are running in more than one country, it is essential that your legal advisors in each jurisdiction communicate effectively. A lead counsel should be appointed to oversee the overall strategy and ensure that steps taken in one set of proceedings do not undermine your position in another.

 

Consider Arbitration as an Alternative

International arbitration offers several advantages over multi-country litigation:

• A single, neutral forum: avoiding the need for parallel court proceedings.
• Flexibility: the parties can agree on procedural rules, the language of the proceedings, and the location of hearings.
• Enforceability: as noted above, the New York Convention provides a well-established framework for enforcing arbitral awards internationally.
• Confidentiality: unlike most court proceedings, arbitration is private.

 

Protect Your Position with Interim Measures

In cross-border disputes, there is often a risk that the other party will move or hide assets before the case is resolved. Courts in England and Wales have powerful tools to prevent this, including:

• Freezing injunctions: prevent a party from disposing of assets worldwide.
• Search orders: allow evidence to be preserved before it can be destroyed.

These remedies can be sought urgently and, in some cases, without the other side being given advance notice.

 

Get Your Contracts Right from the Start

Many of the difficulties in multi-jurisdictional disputes can be avoided, or at least reduced, with careful contract drafting.

Key clauses to consider include:

• Jurisdiction clauses: specifying which country’s courts will have authority over any dispute.
• Governing law clauses: specifying which country’s law applies to the contract.
• Arbitration clauses: referring disputes to arbitration rather than the courts.
• Service of proceedings clauses: setting out how legal documents should be delivered to each party, which can avoid significant delays in cross-border cases.

 

Key Takeaways

• Multi-jurisdictional disputes are complex, but with the right strategy they can be managed effectively.
• Early decisions about forum, governing law, and enforcement are critical.
• Coordinating legal teams and maintaining a unified strategy across jurisdictions is essential to controlling costs and achieving a consistent outcome.
• Well-drafted contracts can prevent many of these disputes from becoming unmanageable in the first place.

 

How We Can Help

If your business is involved in — or wants to prepare for — a cross-border dispute, our Commercial Litigation and International Dispute Resolution team can assist. We work with trusted legal partners around the world to deliver coordinated, strategic advice wherever your dispute arises.

Get in touch to discuss your matter, or explore our related articles for more guidance on protecting your business in international commerce.

Jan’s extensive experience in the Czech Republic is a valuable addition to Sherrards’ strong international capabilities. His understanding of Central and Eastern European markets will further enhance the support we offer to clients with interests in the region. Jan’s arrival strengthens the firm’s International Desks, which includes our established French, German, Spanish, Italian and China & Southeast Asia desks, and reflects our commitment to delivering seamless cross-border legal solutions through our wider international networks.

His work spans arbitration and court proceedings under a variety of institutional rules, as well as matters before the English courts. Jan is particularly recognised for his ability to manage disputes that involve unfamiliar legal systems, cultural considerations and sensitive commercial issues, providing clear and pragmatic advice throughout.

Paul Marmor, Head of Dispute Resolution and International, commented “Jan brings another dimension to the firm’s international offering placing us literally and figuratively in  an area in Central Europe where few English law firms are operating making us virtually unique among the English legal profession.”

Jan’s appointment reinforces Sherrards’ commitment to delivering an enhanced dispute resolution services and supporting clients on challenging domestic and international matters.

To contact Jan Kunstyr, find his details here.

Why Restore a Dissolved Company?

Restoration may be necessary for several reasons:

• Recovery of Assets: A common reason for restoring a dissolved company, is where at the time of dissolution, money was left in the company bank account. The company may also still hold property or other assets. When the company is dissolved, any assets held by it become bona vacantia (i.e. ownerless property that passes to the Crown). In the case of funds held in the company bank account, these would be transferred out of the account directly to the Crown.
• Unresolved Legal or Financial Matters: Contracts, liabilities, or claims may remain outstanding. For example, a company may have a right to bring a substantial debt claim against another party, and it
• Error in Dissolution: Companies may be struck off due to administrative oversight, such as failure to file annual returns or statutory accounts.
• Continuation of Business: Directors may wish to resume trading or restructure the business.

Who Can Apply for Court-Ordered Restoration?

Under Section 1029 of the Companies Act 2006, the following parties may apply:

• Former directors or shareholders
• Creditors
• Individuals with a legal claim against the company
• Persons with an interest in land or property affected by the company’s dissolution
• Pension fund trustees
• Liquidators or other parties specified by regulation

Time Limits

Applications must generally be made within six years of the company’s dissolution. Exceptions may apply in cases involving personal injury claims or other special circumstances.

The Court Restoration Process:

In summary, the steps undertaken to restore a company to the register (i.e. where administrative restoration is not possible) are:

1. Preparing the Application

Applicants must prepare a claim form and supporting evidence, including:

• A witness statement detailing the reason for restoration (e.g. to recover company funds)
• Evidence of the applicant’s standing (e.g. whether they are a director or a creditor etc.)
• Financial records or proof of assets held by the company (e.g. a bank statement showing the funds transferred to the Crown)

2. Issuing and Serving the Claim

The claim is issued in the High Court or relevant county court. It must be served on:

• The Registrar of Companies
• The Treasury Solicitor (if bona vacantia assets are involved)
• HMRC (if tax matters are relevant)

3. Court Hearing

A hearing date is set, and typically the court will deal with the application ‘on the papers’, meaning that attendance is not required by any party. If successful, the court issues an order for restoration.

4. Post-Restoration Obligations

Once restored, the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had never been dissolved. However, it must:

• File all outstanding accounts and confirmation statements
• Address any tax liabilities for the period of dissolution
• Resume compliance with Companies House regulations
• Depending on the terms of the order, close the company down again once the bank account funds have been recovered.

Administrative vs. Court Restoration

While administrative restoration is a simpler process available to former directors or shareholders (under Sections 1024–1028), court restoration is broader in scope and allows creditors and other interested parties to apply. It is the process that must be used if administrative restoration cannot be utilised.

Practical Considerations

• Legal Advice: Restoration is a fiddly and technical process. Legal guidance improves the likelihood of success.
• Costs: Applicants must pay court fees and may incur legal costs. If bona vacantia assets are involved, fees may also be payable to the Treasury Solicitor.
• Impact on Third Parties: Restoration may affect third-party rights, especially if assets were transferred during the dissolution period.

 

If you need to restore a company, particularly to recover funds lost in a bank account, then please contact Aaron Heslop today for a free no obligation discussion.

It was great welcoming Nida Ahmed, foreign affairs graduate of the University of Virginia, USA and Kaela Ruso, third-year law student at the University of Vienna, Austria, to Sherrards’ summer internship programme – here being shown the ropes by Amanda Newman, trainee solicitor and part of Sherrards’ Training Academy, together with Paul Marmor, the head of litigation and international.

Our interns were able to help us out on a number of multi-jurisdictional cases currently being dealt with by the litigation department in the Commercial section of the High Court, which is less than 200 metres from our office.

Thanks also to Stephen McNeill, corporate partner, for his guiding hand, adding to the perspective of our interns.

For more information about Sherrards’ Training Academy, please reach out to Jo Riley on jo.riley@sherrards.com or +44 (0)1727 832830.

Understanding how defamation works — and what options are available — is essential for anyone navigating the modern media landscape.

What Is Defamation, and Why Does It Matter?

Defamation is the legal term for a false statement that unjustly harms someone’s reputation. It takes two primary forms:

• Libel: defamation in permanent form, typically written or published.
• Slander: defamation in transient form, usually spoken.

To succeed in a defamation claim, the statement must be:

• Defamatory: it lowers the person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.
• False: truth is an absolute defence.
• Published: communicated to at least one third party.
• Likely to cause serious harm: especially relevant under UK defamation law since the Defamation Act 2013.

In practice, defamatory content may appear in a wide range of contexts — from social media posts and online reviews to traditional journalism and internal company communications.

Examples from the Field

Defamation law spans many sectors and scenarios. Consider the following examples:

The Online Review That Went Too Far

A small business faced a wave of negative attention after a former customer posted an online review accusing the owner of illegal practices. The claim was untrue — but it spread rapidly, causing reputational and financial harm. While businesses must tread carefully due to freedom of expression, the review crossed the line from opinion into false factual allegation. The situation was eventually resolved through direct negotiation and a retraction.

LinkedIn Allegations and Professional Fallout

In another case, a professional’s former colleague shared accusations on LinkedIn, alleging misconduct during a past collaboration. While framed as commentary, the statements suggested criminal behaviour — triggering serious concerns for the individual’s career. The matter highlighted how even ‘personal’ online platforms can be legally actionable if reputational damage occurs.

False Claims in a Press Article

Public figures and companies are often subjected to critical media coverage. In one instance, a technology firm took issue with claims made in a tech magazine article suggesting unethical data practices. After raising concerns directly with the publication, an editorial correction was issued — demonstrating how press accountability and reputational repair can go hand in hand.

Reputation Management in Practice

Legal mechanisms are just one part of managing reputation. Often, the best approach is multi-layered, combining:

• Monitoring: staying aware of what’s said online and in the press.
• Proactive communication: issuing timely, factual statements to clarify misinformation.
• Platform engagement: requesting takedowns or corrections via social media or website hosts.
• Strategic response: weighing the merits of legal action versus reputational risk.

Sometimes, litigation is necessary — particularly where the damage is significant, and informal resolution has failed. Other times, discretion and diplomacy achieve more than a courtroom ever could.

A Shifting Landscape

Defamation law continues to evolve. Courts now weigh freedom of speech more carefully against the right to reputation. Social media has blurred the lines between personal expression and public accountability. At the same time, the public’s appetite for transparency means that how a person or company responds to a reputational threat often says more than the original accusation.

Conclusion: A Matter of Truth, Context, and Care

Reputation is an asset — often built over years, yet vulnerable to damage in moments. Whether the threat comes from a malicious tweet, a misleading article, or a mistaken identity, understanding the basics of defamation and taking timely, measured steps can make all the difference.

In an era of instant communication and lasting digital footprints, vigilance, clarity, and a sound grasp of defamation principles are vital for anyone seeking to protect what matters most: their name.

To find out more about defamation, contact Thomas Clark. 

43 countries were represented from all over the region, as well as from Brazil, Argentina, the USA, Mexico and, of course, like Eurovision, Australia also took part.

Alliott Global Alliance is now the fifth largest alliance in terms of coverage of law firms across the globe, and sixth in terms of accountancy firms, providing Sherrards’ clients and contacts with unparalleled professional coverage, alongside our membership of the International Bar Association, with which we are also very much involved.

The key take-away from the conference (apart from the strudel and the schnitzel) is that AI is a total game-changer for the legal profession.

What makes the Alliance work?  It’s the friendships, the relationships – and in this uncertain world, that counts for everything.

“If I look at the skyline of Vienna, I see a city of music”

– Plácido Domingo.

Our inimitable team of Paul Marmor (head of litigation and international), Jean-Paul da Costa (head of corporate) and Nicole Marmor (head of private wealth) spent some time in Vienna, the city of Mozart, art, strudel, John le Carré spies, Eurovision and, more importantly, the annual gathering of the Alliott Global Alliance EMEA.

Sherrards acted for the former Global COO, who was the First Defendant. Senior Consultant to Sherrards Fraud and Business Crime Team, Simon Morgan, headed the defence team, alongside Aleksandra Rychlewska.

Following a 9-year investigation by HMRC’s Offshore Corporate & Wealthy Division, criminal proceedings were commenced in early 2023 by the specialist division of the CPS, the Serious Economic Organised Crime and International Directorate (SEOCID). The trial commenced in February 2025 at Southwark Crown Court.

As a result of the proactive and exhaustive preparation carried out by Sherrards, instructing counsel from Libertas Chambers, the Crown offered no evidence after 6 weeks into a trial that was due to last 4 months, after accepting failures in the disclosure process.

Sherrards secured not only the acquittal of its own client, but the collapse of the entire case resulting in the acquittal of the other 5 defendants. Thanks are extended to Simon Csoka KC and Roxanne Morrell, of counsel who were retained by Sherrards, for their expertise and assistance in achieving this extraordinary result.

 

What Is the Effective Cause Principle?The “effective cause” principle is crucial in resolving these disputes. Courts typically assess whether the agency claiming the fee was the one that actively facilitated the relationship between the candidate and the hirer. This approach ensures that the agency that played a significant role in the hiring process, rather than merely being the first to introduce the candidate, is compensated.

The Importance of Clear Terms and Conditions

Clear terms and conditions are key to prevent disputes. Agencies should explicitly outline the circumstances under which they are entitled to an introduction fee. These terms should specify:

• The circumstances under which a fee is payable
• What constitutes an effective cause in the hiring process
• How long an agency can claim a right to payment after introducing a candidate

This clarity helps ensure that only the agency that significantly contributed to the placement process gets paid. In addition, whilst having clear terms and conditions is essential, agencies must do everything they can to ensure that they have drawn their terms and conditions to the attention of the hirer.

The ‘First to Introduce’ Rule

Generally, the courts do not favour the “first to introduce” rule. Instead, they look for the agency that was proactive in arranging interviews and negotiating terms. Agencies should follow up on candidate introductions promptly and manage the entire recruitment process actively to be recognized as the effective cause.

In conclusion, recruitment agencies can increase their chances of securing their fees by having clear terms and conditions, actively managing the recruitment process, and ensuring they are the effective cause of the candidate’s placement. This approach not only minimises disputes but also ensures fair compensation for the agency’s efforts.

 

To find out more about recruitment agency fees, click here or use the details below to contact us.