Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Brent Cross v John Lewis Turnover Rent Dispute and Implications on Landlords and Tenants

Posted on: May 6th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

John Lewis is being sued in the High Court by the current and past landlords of London’s Brent Cross Shopping centre (property company Hammerson and Standard Life Investments) over whether click-and-collect sales should be included in turnover rent calculations.

This case serves as a good example of how disputes can occur where leases pre-date the internet. It also shows the importance of careful drafting of the definition of “turnover” and “gross receipts”.

What is turnover rent?

Turnover rent is a commercial lease structure where rent is calculated, wholly or partly based on a percentage of the gross sales generated by a tenant’s business at that location.

It provides a fair-sharing approach for risks, reducing overheads for retailers in tough times while allowing landlords to participate in successful trading.

What is this case about?

The dispute centres on a 1979 lease agreement which pre-dated the internet and was agreed three decades before John Lewis offered click-and-collect services. John Lewis must pay a base rent of £30,000 a year, plus a cut of “gross receipts”. This works out that the retailer must pay the landlord 0.75% of the store’s gross receipts when annual turnover from the store exceeds £4 million. If annual turnover exceeds £10 million, the payment increases to 1% of turnover.

The lease specifies that “mail, telephone or similar orders received or filled at or from the demises premises or directed thereto” contributed to gross receipts. The claimants are seeking payment of backdated rents arguing that “gross receipts” as defined in the 1972 lease, should include online sales that are collected at the Brent Cross store, as well as online stores that are fulfilled from the store. Orders that are made in store, but which are fulfilled later from one of John Lewis’s delivery depots should also be included.

The defendants are arguing that online sales and related collection charges are exempt from turnover rent calculations because the transaction is completed when the product is dispatched from its main distribution centre to the relevant store, which means by the time the product has been collected by the customer, the product has already been sold. There are suggestions that they have also argued that the original lease could not possibly cover click-and-collect sales, since the internet had not been invented then.

Practical implications for landlords and tenants

  • Expect disputes where leases pre-date e-commerce:

Older turnover-rent definitions sometimes try to capture non-in-store trading via wording such as “mail, telephone or similar orders received or filled at or from the premises”. This case shows that legacy wording may be argued to cover modern channels such as click-and-collect and ship-from-store, depending on the drafting.

  • Advisable for landlord’s to review (and, where possible, tighten) the definition of “turnover”/“gross receipts”:

If turnover rent is material to value or funding, landlords will want explicit treatment of (i) online orders collected at the store; (ii) online orders fulfilled from the store; (iii) in-store orders later fulfilled from a depot; and (iv) collection/delivery/handling fees. Click-and-collect is often included in turnover-rent definitions, but clarity is key.

  • Advisable for tenants to ring-fence digital revenue and avoid double counting:

Tenants typically push for clear exclusions (and accounting mechanics) so revenue is counted once, and so purely online sales are not treated as store turnover merely because the store is a collection point. Where the inclusion of click-and-collect and/or other omnichannel sales in turnover is accepted, tenants may seek a lower percentage or higher threshold to reflect the different economics.

  • Data, reporting and audit rights become central:

 Turnover-rent leases usually require periodic sales reports and allow landlord verification/audit. Both sides should ensure systems can produce the required splits (in-store vs online, collected vs delivered, fulfilled from store vs depot). Landlords often require transparency, which is sometimes driven by lender requirements, while tenants may have sensitivity/practicality concerns.

  • Drafting takeaways for new leases or renewals:

It would be advisable to agree Heads of Terms that expressly address omnichannel issues i.e click-and-collect, ship-from-store, returns processed in-store, gift cards/vouchers, discounts, VAT treatment, refunds/cancellations, and the timing of when a sale is treated as “made” (order, dispatch or collection).

The Brent Cross v John Lewis dispute highlights how older turnover-rent drafting can struggle to accommodate modern retail models. For both landlords and tenants, the practical lesson is to define “turnover”/“gross receipts” clearly (including how click-and-collect and fulfilment are treated) and ensure the reporting and audit mechanics match the tenant’s sales systems.

For specialist advice on turnover rent drafting, disputes and retail lease strategy, please contact Lawrence Stephens.

The End of Upwards-Only Rent Reviews: The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 Receives Royal Assent

Posted on: May 1st, 2026 by Ella Darnell

On 29 April 2026, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (the Act) received Royal Assent.

The Act includes a controversial ban on upwards-only rent reviews (UORR) in all business tenancy leases in England and Wales, with the aim to protect high street tenants and encourage economic growth.

The ban on UORR is not currently in force and requires secondary legislation to take effect, which is expected in 2027.

Key takeaways

  • Landlords will be prevented from including upwards-only rent reviews in commercial leases, where the reviewed rent cannot be ascertained when the lease is granted.
  • It will apply to all “business tenancies” whether or not the lease is contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
  • The ban will apply to all new leases granted after the relevant section of the Act comes into force, unless the lease was entered into pursuant to an agreement which completed before the ban took effect.
  • Lease renewals for existing tenancies entered into after the ban comes into force will also be caught if:
  • there was no agreement for lease prior to the ban coming into force; or
  • the renewal lease is granted pursuant to a “renewal arrangement” made on or after 17 March 2026:

This will capture renewal leases where, for example, either the landlord or tenant has exercised a right in the original lease or contained in a separate agreement which requires the other party to grant or take a new lease.

  • Clauses in existing leases which require a sub-lease to include an UORR will be void.
  • Whilst the rent review process is currently predominantly led by landlords, tenants will also have a right to initiate rent reviews once the legislation is enacted.
  • Leases renewed under Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 are also caught by the new provisions.
  • Parties will not be able to contract out of the ban.

What does this mean in practice?

Given the likelihood of landlords wanting to protect investment returns, the Act may result in higher initial rents and shorter lease terms.

Alternative rent review mechanisms which we may start to see include:

  • Index linked rent reviews:

An index linked rent review adjusts rents based on inflation indices like CPI or RPI. Opting for an index linked rent review mechanism which allows the revised rent to go up or down presents a prudent option for both parties, keeping rent in line with inflation.

However, given the current economic climate and inflationary trends it appears unlikely that tenants are going to experience falling rents any time soon. Index linked rents also reinforce the importance of effective cap and collar provisions, to mitigate economic volatility. The Government has only recently stated their intention to consult on caps and collars, so we await the outcome of these discussions.

  • Stepped rents:

Stepped rents or fixed uplifts will not be impacted by the ban (as the level of rent is known at the start of the term) and present another viable alternative to landlords seeking to protect their investments.

An increased use of stepped or fixed rents is likely to have significant commercial consequences, including increased landlord pressure for shorter leases and additional break rights.

The ban on UORR represents a significant shift in the commercial property market.

If you would like to discuss how the ban may impact your business or future transactions, please get in touch. 

Matt Green on Recovering Privacy Coin Monero (XMR) Following Attempted Laundering

Posted on: April 28th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

This article was written by Matt Green, Partner and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets, and was published on Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence on 28 April, 2026. Subscription may be required to view.

You can read the full article as published on Thomson Reuters below.

This article details the recovery of Monero (XMR), a notoriously difficult-to-trace privacy coin, following a fraud. The Monero was ultimately recovered through coordinated legal, investigative and law enforcement action.

The author’s client received a call from an individual purporting to represent a cryptocurrency exchange. During the call, the fraudster asserted that the client’s exchange account had been compromised and urgently instructed the client to transfer assets to a trust wallet as a protective measure. 

The fraudsters were in possession of the client’s personal and account details, likely obtained via data breaches. This gave the scam credibility and induced the client to act quickly. 

As a result, the client transferred significant holdings of bitcoin and ether to the fraudster. These were subsequently routed through a series of exchanges and converted into other digital assets, including Monero.

Tracing, initial exchange engagement 

A forensic blockchain investigation traced asset movements to the exchanges FixedFloat, HitBTC and ChangeNOW, where the bitcoin and ether had been converted into other currencies. 

Letters were urgently sent to those exchanges to confirm receipt of the criminal proceeds and to provide instructions on what to do next. The responses varied: some exchanges failed to respond, while others confirmed that certain funds had already been dissipated. 

Importantly, some of the assets had been converted into Monero and remained identifiable at ChangeNOW, which then froze what it had and confirmed compliance with the requests made in the letters.

Law enforcement involvement, freezing order 

With assistance from the Metropolitan Police cryptocurrency investigations team, and relying on blockchain forensics, an application was made to Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a crypto wallet freezing order. 

The court granted a freezing order under section 303Z37(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, formally freezing the Monero held at ChangeNOW for an initial period of six months. This step was critical in preserving the remaining assets while further recovery steps were pursued. 

Order to release cryptoassets 

Upon expiry of the six-month freezing period, an application was made for a declaration that the Monero belonged and was deliverable to the clients.

The Court granted a cryptoasset release order for Monero assets pursuant to sections 303Z50(4) and (5), and 303Z51(4) and (5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Service of the order on ChangeNOW was effected by the Metropolitan Police.

Custody, attribution and transfer

Given the technical complexity of sending Monero, which is designed to evade tracing, specialist asset custody and attribution support was required. 

Asset Reality, which seizes, manages and disposes of traditional and digital assets, was instructed to receive, attribute and manage the Monero. To mitigate attribution risk, an initial test transfer was conducted. Asset Reality required specialist knowledge to identify which Monero assets were sent by ChangeNOW, which is highly uncommon. The remaining balance was subsequently transferred once verification was complete. 

Outcome 

Once the Monero was in Asset Reality’s custody, it was able to locate an approved buyer for onward handling and sale. The client then received fiat currency into his personal account. This marked the successful recovery phase of assets that had initially appeared, by design, almost impossible to recover. 

Legal, practical takeaways 

This matter illustrates several important points for practitioners and victims of cryptoasset fraud: 

  • Recoveries remain possible, even where assets are converted into privacy coins.
  • The use of Monero or a similar, privacy-focused cryptocurrency does not render recovery efforts futile when timely tracing, freezing and expert handling are deployed. 
  • Law enforcement engagement is increasingly effective and proactive.
  • The involvement of specialist police crypto teams can be decisive, particularly in securing freezing and release orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

This case demonstrates the practical effectiveness of combining civil recovery mechanisms under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 with technical blockchain expertise and law enforcement support. It provides a clear example that even in cases involving Monero, the legal system has viable tools to preserve and recover misappropriated cryptoassets when action is taken promptly and collaboratively.

Lawrence Stephens Strengthens Private Wealth and Succession Planning Team with Key Partner Hire

Posted on: April 22nd, 2026 by Ella Darnell

Lawrence Stephens is pleased to announce the appointment of Partner Amanda Nelson, who joins the firm to further strengthen its Private Wealth and Succession Planning offering.

Amanda brings with her a wealth of experience in private client law. She advises UK and international individuals, families and family businesses on tax, trusts and succession planning, and has particular expertise in inheritance and capital gains tax,  family governance, philanthropy and charity law.

She has extensive experience advising trustees, beneficiaries, charities and family offices, as well as supporting colleagues on contentious private wealth matters. Her work frequently has an international dimension and her expertise spans both onshore and offshore trust and succession matters.

Commenting on her appointment, Amanda said:

“I’m delighted to be joining Lawrence Stephens during  such an exciting period of growth for the firm. Lawrence Stephens has a strong reputation for assisting individuals in planning their financial futures, as well as those experiencing wealth creating events. I look forward to working with colleagues across the firm to support clients with their private wealth and succession planning needs.”

Gareth Hughes, Head of Lawrence Stephen’s Private Wealth and Succession Planning team added: “We’re very pleased to welcome Amanda to the team. Her extensive expertise and reputation for discreet, yet effective advice will be welcomed by our clients and our wider private wealth ecosystem.” 

You can read more about the Private Wealth and Succession Planning team here.

Our Response to the Civil Justice Council Consultation on the Use of AI in Preparing Court Documents

Posted on: April 16th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

The Civil Justice Council (CJC- which advises the Lord Chancellor, the Judiciary and the CPR Committee on civil matters) has produced an interim report and consultation on the “Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents”. (To read the full report, please follow this link: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Interim-Report-and-Consultation-Use-of-AI-for-Preparing-Court-Documents-2.pdf )

The purpose of this consultation was to consider whether rules are needed to govern the use of AI by legal representatives for the preparation of court documents. The CJC has sought views on the issues, including the proposed way forward, and we present below a summary of our response and conclusions.

Executive summary

The CJC’s consultation on the Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents marks an important moment in the evolution of civil justice. AI has the potential to improve efficiency, reduce cost, and enhance access to justice, but its use in litigation must be carefully governed to ensure that evidence remains reliable and professional responsibility is preserved.

Our response supports a targeted, proportionate framework: one that enables the legitimate and beneficial use of AI, while reinforcing human control and decision making, accountability, as well as safeguarding the integrity of the court process.

Our overarching position

We support the responsible use of AI in civil litigation, particularly where it delivers efficiency and cost savings that benefit clients, improves access to justice and assists the judicial process. However, these advantages must be balanced against well‑documented risks, including hallucinations, opacity in decision‑making, and potential erosion of evidential authenticity.

Our core conclusions are:

  • Human responsibility must remain central. Where documents are submitted to court, professional accountability should never be displaced by technology.
  • Generative AI should not be used to create or re‑shape trial witness evidence. The provenance and authenticity of factual evidence must be preserved.
  • Transparency is essential where AI materially contributes to expert opinion, to ensure fairness and effective cross‑
  • Administrative and benign uses of AI should not be over‑regulated, as this would add cost, complexity, and satellite disputes, without improving judicial

This approach is consistent with the objectives of PD57AC, existing duties under PD32, and the judiciary’s repeated emphasis on verification, accuracy, and human oversight.

Statements of case and advocacy documents

We agree that no new procedural rules are required for statements of case, skeleton arguments, or other advocacy documents merely because AI has been used in their preparation.

Legal representatives already owe stringent duties to the court in respect of accuracy, propriety, and candour. Those duties apply regardless of the drafting tools used. Requiring routine AI‑use disclosures would be disproportionate and risks creating delay and unnecessary disputes (particularly as AI functionality becomes embedded in standard drafting software).

Our position is that disclosure of AI use should only be considered where AI has been used to generate substantive evidential content, not where it has been used for routine drafting, research assistance, or administrative purposes.

Disclosure and document review

Disclosure remains one of the most expensive stages of litigation, particularly in data‑heavy disputes. AI‑assisted review and Technology Assisted Review (TAR) are now well‑established tools for managing that cost.

We do not support a general requirement to declare AI use in disclosure lists or statements. Disputes in this area typically concern the scope and quality of the search, not the mere use of technology. These issues that are already addressed through case management, the Disclosure Review Document and Disclosure Certificate.

However, we do support greater transparency around how TAR is deployed, including a requirement to declare the recall threshold used to conclude first‑tier review, so that the opposing party and the court can assess whether the technology has been applied appropriately.

Used with proper oversight, AI has an important role in making disclosure more efficient and more proportionate, and its use should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

Witness statements: preserving authenticity

We strongly support the Civil Justice Council’s differentiated approach to witness evidence.

For non‑trial witness statements, existing professional obligations are sufficient, and no additional AI‑specific declarations are necessary.

For trial witness statements governed by PD57AC, we support a clear rule requiring confirmation that AI has not been used to generate, alter, embellish, or re‑phrase the witness’s evidence. This is essential to preserve the witness’s own words and to ensure the court can rely on the evidence before it.

This requirement should sit alongside the statement of truth and apply equally to legally represented parties and litigants in person, with appropriate steps taken to ensure unrepresented parties are made aware of the obligation.

Translation

We support the use of AI by certified human translators, provided the translator takes responsibility for accuracy by signing a statement of verification. We also support the use of identified machine‑translation tools, so long as the process is transparent and other parties are able to check translations themselves if required. The key safeguard is human accountability, not blanket prohibition.

Expert evidence and AI transparency

Expert evidence raises distinct issues. Where AI is used to inform or generate expert opinion (beyond administrative tasks such as transcription), transparent disclosure is essential.

We support amending expert statements of truth to require experts to identify and explain any substantive use of AI in their analysis. This protects the integrity of the expert process, ensures a level playing field, and allows AI‑related assumptions or limitations to be explored in cross‑examination.

At the same time, legitimate AI‑assisted analysis should not be stifled where it enhances accuracy or efficiency.

Defining AI and avoiding over‑regulation

We agree that the term “artificial intelligence” is sufficiently clear for procedural rules, but it can be refined to refer to generative AI or AI capable of producing substantive content, expressly excluding administrative uses such as spelling, grammar, formatting, transcription, and accessibility.

We support a clear distinction between:

  • administrative tools; and
  • AI that generates substantive factual or opinion content, with stricter controls applied where AI affects evidence rather than legal analysis.

We do not support routine requirements to name specific AI tools used. This risks shifting focus away from professional responsibility, creates practical difficulties where parties do not have access to the same tools, and could necessitate unnecessary disclosure of prompts or workflows. Where disclosure is required, the focus should be on how AI was used and what role it played, not on product branding.

Court permissions and case management

We do not consider it necessary to introduce a new rule requiring court permission for AI use. The court already has ample powers under CPR 3.1 and CPR 32.1 to control evidence, manage cases, and address any concerns about methodology or fairness as they arise.

Conclusion

AI has the potential to make civil litigation faster, fairer, and more accessible. But its use must be principled, proportionate, and anchored in human responsibility.

Our response supports:

  • clear prohibitions where AI risks corrupting evidence;
  • targeted transparency where AI materially shapes opinion evidence; and
  • regulatory restraint where AI is used administratively or as a drafting aid.

This balanced approach protects the integrity of the justice system while allowing innovation to deliver real benefits for courts, parties, and the public.

For advice on using AI in litigation safely and effectively, please contact Dominic Holden.

 

Lawrence Stephens Completes 10 Transactions for Ansor Portfolio Companies

Posted on: April 15th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

In the week before Easter Lawrence Stephens completed 10 corporate transactions for portfolio companies backed by buy‑and‑build private equity firm Ansor, marking a particularly active period in the run‑up to the end of the financial year.

The transactions were completed across multiple Ansor portfolio companies, including ALS Dental, Fourcentric,  Ecology Group, MSK Clinics and Owlis Technology operating across sectors such as fire and security, compliance services, healthcare and dental, and facilities management.

The acquisitions reflect continued growth and strategic momentum across the portfolios.

Lawrence Stephens advised on all of the transactions, working closely with Ansor and its portfolio company management teams to deliver matters efficiently within a compressed timeframe. The work was led by the firm’s Corporate & Commercial team, with support from Commercial Real Estate and Employment, providing coordinated, joined‑up advice.

Ryan D’Souza, Partner, Corporate and Commercial at Lawrence Stephens, commented:

Completing 10 transactions in such a short period underlines both the strength of our relationship with Ansor and the quality of the businesses within its portfolio.  It also reflects the ability of our teams at Lawrence Stephens to deliver against demanding deadlines. We are proud to support Ansor as it continues to execute on its growth strategy”.

Edward Ainsworth, Managing Partner of Ansor LLP commented:

Lawrence Stephens has advised Ansor and its portfolio companies on more than 116  acquisitions  to date, providing a safe pair of hands and long‑term support across the full deal lifecycle, from initial investment through to bolt‑on acquisitions and group development.”

Ansor is a specialist buy‑and‑build private equity firm, with over £500 million of assets under management, backing high‑quality management teams in fragmented, growing sectors and supporting them through disciplined acquisition‑led growth strategies.

Lawrence Stephens acts as a trusted adviser to Ansor and its portfolio companies, across the full deal lifecycle, from initial investment through acquisitions to long‑term portfolio growth. The firm’s deep familiarity with Ansor’s portfolio enables transactions to be executed efficiently and at pace.

If you are considering selling your business, or would like an introduction to a buyer operating a proven buy‑and‑build strategy, please get in touch with Ryan D’Souza.

Winding Up Petitions: What Directors Must Do Immediately (and How to Stop One)

Posted on: April 14th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

A winding up petition is one of the most serious actions a creditor can take against a company. Consequences begin as soon as the petition is filed, long before the court hearing, and directors can face personal risks if the situation is not handled correctly.

If your company has been served with a winding up petition, you usually have seven business days to act before the petition becomes public and the bank potentially freezes your company’s account.

This guide explains – clearly and practically – what happens next, what dangers to avoid, and how directors can stop or challenge the petition.

What Is a Winding Up Petition? (Simple Explanation)

A winding up petition is a legal application by a creditor asking the court to close a company down because it cannot pay its debts. It often follows steps such as a statutory demand.

Once filed at court, the petition triggers serious legal and commercial consequences whether or not the debt is genuinely owed. This is why directors must act quickly.

  1. What Happens Immediately After a Winding Up Petition Is Filed?

Transactions After the Petition May Be Void

From the moment the petition is filed, most transactions made by the company may later be declared automatically void if a winding up order is made. This includes:

  • payments to suppliers
  • transfers of assets
  • sales of property
  • repayments to lenders or directors

To carry out almost any transaction safely, a company usually needs a court validation order.

Allowing transactions without court approval may expose directors to personal liability.

  1. Bank Accounts May Be Frozen – Often Without Warning

Banks routinely freeze company bank accounts once a petition is advertised in the London Gazette, and sometimes earlier.

This can instantly prevent the company from:

  • paying employees
  • paying suppliers
  • meeting rent or tax obligations
  • continuing to trade

Once accounts are frozen, the company often stops operating immediately unless a validation order is obtained.

  1. Why a Validation Order May Be Required

A validation order is a court order confirming that a transaction, or category of transactions, is permitted despite the petition. It can:

  • authorise day‑to‑day trading
  • permit payment of wages
  • approve the sale of assets or property
  • protect directors from personal liability

Without one, the company risks completed transactions being unwound by a liquidator.

  1. The Practical Burden of Dealing With a Petition

Dealing with a petition requires evidence, court filings, and often multiple hearings. If the petition is valid, the company will need to pay:

  • the petition debt and interest; and
  • the petitioning creditor’s legal costs.

If not handled correctly, directors may face criticisms for failures in financial management.

  1. What Happens if the Court Makes a Winding Up Order?

If the court makes a winding up order, the company enters compulsory liquidation. This results in:

  • appointment of the Official Receiver (initially)
  • loss of all control by directors
  • liquidation of assets for the benefit of creditors
  • employees being automatically dismissed
  • eventual dissolution of the company

This is usually the end of the business unless a rescission or stay is obtained promptly.

  1. Why Directors Must Not Ignore the Petition

If a company does nothing:

  • the petition will still be listed for hearing
  • the court may wind the company up in its absence
  • directors may face criticism for failing to act responsibly

Any company wishing to dispute, negotiate, or ask for time to pay must file evidence and attend the hearing.

  1. The Crucial 7‑Day Deadline Before Advertisement

The creditor can advertise the petition in the London Gazette after seven business days from service.

Once advertised:

  • the bank will usually freeze accounts
  • suppliers, employees, and customers may become aware
  • contract termination or event of default clauses may be triggered
  • commercial credit will rapidly deteriorate

Preventing advertisement is often the most urgent priority.

  1. What Happens If Transactions Are Made Without Court Approval?

If transactions take place after the petition is filed without a validation order:

  • they may be automatically void
  • the liquidator can demand return of the assets
  • the recipient may have to seek retrospective validation
  • directors may face breach of duty claims

This is one of the most common sources of personal liability for directors during insolvency.

  1. Key Personal Risks for Directors

Directors of struggling companies can face significant personal exposure, including:

  • personal guarantees being enforced
  • misfeasance or breach of duty claims
  • wrongful trading, if they continue trading without a reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency
  • fraudulent trading, where creditors are deliberately misled
  • Insolvency Act offences, such as concealing assets

Early advice often reduces or eliminates these risks. Compulsory liquidation may also expose directors who have conducted themselves improperly to investigations by the Insolvency Service, who in turn may seek to have them disqualified as acting as directors.

  1. Validation Orders: Why They Are So Important

A validation order can:

  • authorise trading
  • protect payments
  • allow the sale of assets
  • prevent personal liability
  • avoid disruption while the company disputes the debt

Because of how quickly winding up petitions escalate, validation orders are often prepared and submitted on an urgent basis.

  1. Stopping the Petition Being Advertised: Injunctions

Once the 7‑day period expires, the creditor may advertise the petition. Advertisement cannot be undone, so urgent injunctions are sometimes required.

The court may restrain advertisement where:

  • the debt is genuinely disputed
  • there is a counterclaim reducing the debt below £750
  • the debt is not legally recoverable
  • the petition amounts to an abuse of process
  1. Does Paying the Petition Debt End the Petition?

No. Paying the petition debt alone does not end the petition. It must be:

  • withdrawn by the petitioner, or
  • dismissed by the court.

Other creditors may also seek to “take over” the petition at the hearing.

  1. Challenging a Winding Up Petition

A company can oppose the petition where:

  • the debt is genuinely disputed
  • there is a substantial set‑off or counterclaim
  • technical defects affect the petition

To oppose, the company must file a witness statement at least five business days before the hearing.

In London, disputed petitions are often adjourned to be heard before an ICC Judge at the Rolls Building.

  1. If a Winding Up Order Is Made: Remaining Options

Even after a winding up order is made, remedies include:

  • Rescission – cancelling the order
  • Stay of proceedings – pausing the liquidation
  • Appeal – challenging the decision

They all require urgent action.

How We Help Directors Facing a Winding Up Petition

We regularly assist companies with:

  • emergency advice within hours of service
  • urgent injunctions to restrain advertisement
  • validation order applications
  • challenging or defending petitions at court
  • negotiating with petitioning creditors
  • reducing directors’ personal exposure

Winding up petitions move extremely quickly. Delay usually makes the situation worse.

For urgent advice, contact us immediately on lkallou@lawstep.co.uk.

Lawrence Stephens Presents at LIDW 2026

Posted on: April 14th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

We are proud to be co-hosting two sessions on Wednesday 3 and Friday 5 June, alongside our co-hosts 33 Chancery Lane and Brick Court Chambers.

From Data to Property: Recovering Digital Assets in Modern Law.

We are partnering with 33 Chancery Lane, a specialist set of Chambers with a leading reputation in civil and criminal asset recovery, commercial, and financial wrongdoing, in hosting a presentation titled ‘From Data to Property: Recovering Digital Assets in Modern Law’.

In this, Partner Matt Green and Barrister Flavia Kenyon will examine how crypto assets came to be recognised as property through civil and criminal case law, culminating in the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. Drawing on precedent-setting matters in which they were instructed, they will explore the shift from treating digital assets as data to recognising them as proprietary objects capable of ownership, tracing, freezing, and recovery.

They will also share practical experience from complex recovery cases, including urgent injunctions, disclosure against exchanges, cross-border enforcement, and evidential challenges, offering strategic insights into navigating judicial processes and technical issues in high-value digital asset disputes.

The presentation will take place at 9:00-10:30am on Wednesday 3 June at 30 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PD.

Registration for LIDW events is via their dedicated website, please see here: https://register.lidw.co.uk/event/618  

Turning the tables on hackers: Strategic tools for victims of hacking and fraud

We are partnering with Brick Court Chambers, one of the leading sets of barristers’ chambers in the UK, having a strong reputation for Commercial, Competition, Public and International/EU law, in hosting a presentation titled ‘Turning the tables on hackers: Strategic tools for victims of hacking and fraud’.

In this, Partner Dominic Holden and Barrister Hugo Leith will explore how established civil causes of action and disclosure tools are being repurposed to investigate cyber enabled wrongdoing and recover digital assets internationally. The presentation will conclude with the practical realities of cyber disputes, emergency relief, parallel proceedings, enforcement challenges, and the ethical responsibilities of advisers operating in crisis situations.

The presentation will take place at 2:00-3:30pm on Friday 5 June at 7-8 Essex Street, London. WC2R 3LD.

Registration for LIDW events is via their dedicated website, please see here: https://register.lidw.co.uk/event/621

We would be delighted if you can join us either in-person or online at one or both of these events.  

Buying UK Property Using Fiat Currency from the Sale of Crypto Assets: A Practical Guide for Purchasers, Including a Time-Critical Auction Case Study

Posted on: April 13th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

What “crypto‑funded” property purchases usually mean in practice

Although UK property can be acquired with crypto assets in some circumstances, most purchases that are described as “crypto‑funded” are completed in sterling. In practice, buyers typically sell digital assets for sterling using an exchange or broker and then send the monies to their solicitor who pay the deposit and completion monies following an otherwise standard conveyancing process.

This liquidation matters as the process requires the buyer’s side to conduct enhanced KYC, and AML “source” checks prior to the purchase timetable. In essence, the seller’s experience often looks completely ordinary (they receive the agreed purchase price in sterling through the usual channels).

A six-step process to buying property using the proceeds of selling your crypto

Step 1: Convert your crypto into sterling

Most property buyers convert their crypto into sterling via an exchange; for larger amounts, conversions are often staged (e.g., in tranches) to manage volatility, pricing, and execution slippage. Some also use over-the-counter brokers for larger or more controlled conversions.

Practical tip: The conversion stage is frequently where timing pressure starts, because market moves can affect the sterling amount available for deposit/completion.

Step 2 – Transfer the funds to a bank account

Even as banks have become more familiar with crypto over time, not all are equally comfortable receiving substantial funds from crypto exchanges. Larger transfers can trigger queries about the origin of funds as part of standard AML/KYC procedures.

If you are buying with a mortgage, consumer-facing mortgage guidance indicates lenders may accept the proceeds from crypto sales, but often with extensive documentation requirements – and in some cases a preference that funds have been held in a bank account for a period (known as “seasoning”) before being treated as deposit-eligible.

Step 3: The real gating factor: your solicitor’s Source of Funds (and sometimes Source of Wealth) sign‑off

For many buyers, the decisive issue is not whether the property can be bought with crypto-derived wealth, but whether the buyer can find a solicitor able to address the enhanced Source of Funds (and, where relevant, Source of Wealth) requirements in time to complete the purchase within the required timeframe. A solicitor cannot proceed unless they are comfortable the source of funds is legitimate and properly evidenced.

Where wealth originated in crypto, delays often arise even when the funds are entirely legitimate, because often advisors do not have  the expertise to interpret blockchain ledgers, reconcile exchange statements, or make sense of different “crypto wealth” pathways (e.g., long‑term holding, trading activity, and other ecosystem events that crystallise value).

Practical takeaway: Treat Source-of-Funds work like a mission‑critical workstream. If it begins late, it can become the single point that determines whether you complete on time.

Step 4: Build a clean evidence pack (so queries do not derail exchange/completion)

To reduce any potential friction, compile a clear “audit trail” showing the pathway from the fiat source of wealth (like an inheritance, or salary) to the purchase of crypto assets, and from where those assets are held, traded or swapped, to those funds being liquidated into sterling and deposited into your bank account. Common components include:

  • “real world” source of wealth documents, like bank statements, completion documents from the sale of a property or documents evidencing money from an estate or trust,
  • exchange or broker statements confirming liquidation/conversion,
  • bank statements showing receipt of the sterling proceeds, and
  • supporting records linking holdings to liquidation (wallet evidence / transaction histories where relevant).

A short, written narrative (“how the assets were acquired, where they were held, and how/when they were sold”) can help your solicitor and bank interpret the documents quickly and reduce repeated follow‑ups.

Step 5: Address tax early (because conversions can trigger liabilities)

In the England and Wales, converting crypto into fiat currency, and even exchanging one crypto asset for another, can trigger a tax position depending on the nature of the activity and your circumstances. Leaving tax and records until late in the process can create avoidable delay close to completion.

Practical tip: Crypto friendly apps like Koinly can assist with tax and accounting affairs and are valuable to help evidence the flow of funds. 

Step 6 – Completion

Once funds are held in sterling and your solicitor is satisfied on source checks, exchange and completion can proceed in the usual way: funds are transferred, formalities are completed, and registration steps follow normal conveyancing practice.

Case study: an auction purchase under a strict “notice to complete” timetable

Below is a real‑world style example (with identifying detail removed) showing how Source‑of‑Funds issues can become existential when the purchase timetable is compressed.

The situation

An individual successfully secured a commercial property at auction intending to fund the purchase using liquidated cryptocurrency investments. A standard auction deposit (10%) was paid.

The problem

His usual solicitors refused to act as they could not fulfil the enhanced due diligence requirements needed to verify the crypto-derived funds to the standard required for a property transaction. Having failed to complete on the contractual completion date and with the final deadline looming, the buyer faced substantial losses: loss of the deposit, loss of the asset, and potential wider reputational and financial consequences associated with a failed completion.

What was done

Lawrence Stephens was instructed with three days left of the Notice to Complete period remaining. A specialist team was instructed to produce a structured Source of Funds report designed to meet conveyancing compliance expectations. The work focused on making the crypto-to-sterling pathway legible and verifiable, including:

  • reconstructing early “on‑ramp” funding (how fiat currency entered the crypto ecosystem),
  • substantiating wallet control and mapping transaction flows, and
  • reconciling exchange records with liquidation history to show how proceeds became banked sterling.

The outcome

With the provenance work documented to a standard that satisfied compliance expectations, the conveyancing process was re‑stabilised and the transaction proceeded to completion within the deadline securing the investment for our client

Why this matters

This example illustrates a key reality of crypto‑funded purchases: the primary obstacle is often not the money itself, but whether professionals involved have the capability to evidence provenance convincingly and quickly – especially where the timetable (as in auctions) does not tolerate delays.

Lawrence Stephens are experts in this area.

Quick checklist to reduce the risk of delay (especially for auctions)

Before you bid / make an offer

  • Start your evidence pack early (exchange statements, wallet records, transaction history exports).
  • Prepare a one‑page “funds narrative” explaining acquisition, holding, liquidation and bank receipts.
  • If mortgage finance is involved, speak to a broker early about crypto‑derived deposits and whether “seasoning” expectations apply in practice.

During the off‑ramp (selling crypto for sterling)

  • For larger sums, consider staged conversions to manage execution and keep records clean.
  • Keep all trade confirmations and transfer receipts in one place to respond fast to questions.

In the run‑up to completion

  • Treat “Source of Funds” queries as urgent and respond with structured documentation quickly; late responses often become the critical path.

Why expectations will likely become more formal over time (UK context)

The UK is moving toward a comprehensive crypto regulatory framework that brings more crypto asset activities within the FCA perimeter, with the full regime expected to commence in October 2027.

HM Treasury has positioned these reforms as supporting innovation while improving standards around transparency, consumer protection, and resilience—factors that typically increase the formality of documentation and compliance processes across the ecosystem.

Conclusion

For most buyers, “buying property with crypto” in the UK usually means selling crypto for sterling and completing a standard sterling transaction. The true difficulty is often proving the pathway from digital assets to banked funds to the satisfaction of solicitors (and lenders where relevant) and doing so within the transaction timetable.
The auction case study shows how quickly this can become existential when deadlines are tight – and why early preparation and specialist capability can be the difference between completing and forfeiting a deposit

Important: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. Crypto transactions and property purchases can create tax and compliance obligations, please ensure that you seek professional advice for your particular circumstances.

If you would like to discuss anything with a member of the Lawrence Stephens team, please contact cryptorealestate@lawstep.co.uk

 

 

Lawrence Stephens Advises Blue Shield Capital on £24.8 Million Acquisition Funding

Posted on: April 1st, 2026 by Ella Darnell

Lawrence Stephens’ Real Estate Finance team is proud to have advised Blue Shield Capital on the completion of a £24.8 million acquisition.

The acquisition funding supports a joint venture between H.I.G. Capital and HUB for the purchase of an office building in the heart of the City of London. The site benefits from an existing planning consent, granted in January 2024, for a 13‑storey, 280,000 sq. ft office‑led mixed‑use development. At present, it is occupied by the post‑war office block known as St Clare House, alongside the neighbouring Victorian warehouse building, Writers House. The loan enables the borrowers to transform the site by working within the existing planning parameters to create a residential‑led development that supports and enhances the ongoing regeneration of the surrounding area.

The area is well known for exceptionally strong demand for high‑quality housing and provides a solid foundation for the success of the project.

To complete this significant transaction involved close collaboration between multiple teams across the firm including Banking, Real Estate Finance and Tax, and was completed to a tight deadline, with substantial work carried out over the holiday period.

Blue Shield Capital is a property lender dedicated to streamlining the bridge‑lending process, led by a team of highly experienced finance professionals and real estate professionals.

The transaction was led by Partner and Head of Banking Ajoy Bose-Mallick, with key support from Partner and Head of Real Estate Finance Ann Ebberson, Senior Associate Ashley Wright, Solicitor Mithushan Sivagurunathar and Solicitor Alex Ruder. Tax advice was provided by Partner Leigh Sayliss and Corporate Support provided by James Lyons.

Ajoy Bose-Mallick commented:

“The complexity of this financing deal showcases the ability of the team to advise on high value transactions that require specialist advice across different departments. The team worked tirelessly and endlessly to complete this financing for the first acquisition for its newly established Living Platform between H.I.G. Capital and HUB.”

Blue Shield Capital Limited:

“This landmark financing was a pivotal and highly significant transaction for Blue Shield Capital. We could not have completed this deal without the commitment of the Lawrence Stephens team, who worked seamlessly together to see it through to completion.

Ajoy led an exceptional team at Lawrence Stephens, with Ashley advising on the banking aspects and Ann Ebberson advising on the complex real estate elements. Their combined expertise and dedication were instrumental to the success of this deal.”

You can read more about our Real Estate Finance team here.

Lawrence Stephens Announces Two New Partners

Posted on: March 31st, 2026 by Ella Darnell

Lawrence Stephens is delighted to share that Senior Associates Emma Cocker and Milana Katz have been promoted to Partner, as of 1 April 2026.

Emma is a senior employment lawyer, acting for businesses and individuals across the whole spectrum of employment law and a variety of industries from owner-managed businesses to large corporations. She regularly handles contentious terminations and claims relating to breach of contract, wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal. She also acts in High Court claims relating to breaches of confidentiality obligations and post-termination restrictions arising from employment contracts, share purchase agreements and shareholders’ agreements.

Emma originally trained at Freshfields and joined Lawrence Stephens in 2023 after five years at specialist Employment firm Thomas Mansfield.  

Milana is a member of our Banking team and her clients include leading banks, alternative debt providers, funds and borrowers. She regularly acts on real estate finance deals on both a regulated and unregulated basis across different asset classes including residential properties, hotels, student accommodation, nurseries and care homes.

Milana joined the firm as a Trainee in 2017 after having completed a Master of Laws (LLM) in International Corporate Law from UCL.

Chief Executive Officer Steven Bernstein commented “Our firm continues to grow quickly and I am delighted to welcome Emma and Milana to our expanding Partner cohort. It is also especially pleasing to see promotions from within our own ranks. I am confident that both Emma and Milana will continue to drive the business forward and I wish them continued success in their careers with us.”

Lawrence Stephens Shortlisted for Best Solicitor in the Bridging & Commercial Awards 2026

Posted on: March 27th, 2026 by Ella Darnell

Lawrence Stephens is pleased to announce that the firm’s Banking and Real Estate Finance teams have been shortlisted for Best Solicitor in the Bridging & Commercial Awards 2026. 

The Bridging & Commercial Awards celebrate excellence across the specialist lending and property finance sector, recognising firms and individuals who demonstrate outstanding expertise, service and commitment to clients. Being shortlisted for this award reflects the strength of our offering and the consistent, high-quality advice we provide within the real estate finance space. 

This recognition is a testament to the depth of experience across the firm and our collaborative approach to supporting lenders, borrowers, brokers and intermediaries on complex and high-value transactions. 

We would like to thank our clients, referrers and colleagues for their continued trust and support. We are proud to be recognised among a strong field of shortlisted firms and look forward to the awards later this year. 

You can read more about the Banking and Real Estate Finance team here.