JMW successfully apply for an unfair prejudice petition to be struck out

JMW Commercial Litigation partner Michael Kennedy, assisted by senior associate Hayley Evans and solicitor Rhiannon Baldwin, acted on behalf of three individuals who had an unfair prejudice petition brought against the company that they managed. JMW had acted for the shareholder / directors and the company secretary.

The company was setup to hold the freehold title to a property and manage the property on behalf of the leaseholders.

The petitioner claimed that JMW’s clients collectively acted in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner, raising various allegations. JMW’s clients denied having acted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial as alleged or at all, and in any event, even if the allegations were made out, the complaints were not capable of amounting to conduct of our clients in the management of the company.

How did JMW help?

Michael and his team reviewed the case and then brought an application for the petition to be struck out and/or for summary judgment to be entered in favour of our clients on the basis the petitioner’s case disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or had no reasonable prospects of success.

What was the outcome? 

Following a hearing held at the High Court of Justice in the Business and Property Courts in London, the case was struck out, and the petition was dismissed (the petitioner had also made various other interim applications which were also all dismissed). The petitioner was also ordered to pay JMW’s client’s costs, and the court made an order for costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis for a period of time.

Indemnity costs are the most generous of costs orders and are usually ordered against a party that has engaged in unreasonable conduct.

In this case, the indemnity costs order was due to Hayley Evans having sent a letter to the petitioner putting the petitioner on notice of our client’s costs and to say that, should the petition fail, an order would be made for the petitioner to pay those costs, and referencing an earlier hearing at which a judge issued several warnings to the petitioner on the level of costs of that this type of litigation would incur.

Hayley Evans said “this is an excellent outcome for our clients and brings to a close litigation that has been particularly challenging due to the Petitioner’s approach throughout the proceedings.  The unfair prejudice petition lacked merit and so we are pleased to have satisfied the Court of this and have the claim struck out, despite the Petitioner seeking to amend his petition at the last minute. An added bonus for our clients is the award of indemnity costs for the work carried out from November 2025. This reflects the strength of our clients’ position and the unreasonableness of the Petitioner. All in all a fantastic result.”