January 2026 - Elysium Law

Buying a Business in the UK: A Practical Guide to M&A Under £5million

Posted on 26 Jan 202628 Jan 2026 by David Brogelli

Buying a business can be one of the quickest ways to grow, whether you’re acquiring a competitor, expanding into a new market, or buying your first “ready-made” business rather than starting from scratch.

But even when the purchase price is ‘only’ a few hundred thousand pounds (or a few million), the legal and tax issues can be significant. The reality is that smaller acquisitions often carry more hidden risk, because the target business may be owner-managed, less formally documented, and reliant on a few key customers or suppliers.

This guide is written for business owners, would-be business owners and SME directors considering an acquisition under around £5m, where you want a professional, robust legal process, but you also need cost control and fee transparency.

At Elysium Law, we are a barrister-led boutique firm with a tech-enabled, pragmatic approach, designed to deliver cost effective advice with transparent and flexible fees.

The most common deal structure for SMEs: the share purchase

Most of the acquisitions we advise on in the SME space are share purchases.

In a share purchase, you buy the shares in the company that owns and runs the business. The company stays the same legal entity, which means:

the contracts often stay in place;
employees remain employed by the same company; and
the company’s assets and liabilities remain inside the company (and therefore become your responsibility as the new owner).

That last point is crucial: you’re not just buying the ‘good bits’. You are buying the company ‘warts and all’ unless you negotiate contractual protections.

That’s why the quality of the legal work in a share purchase is usually less about paperwork and more about:

identifying risk early (due diligence);
documenting what the seller is promising (warranties);
and allocating risk fairly (indemnities, price mechanisms, disclosure).

A simple overview of the acquisition process (under £5m)

Every transaction has its own shape, but most SME share purchases follow a familiar route.

1) Initial offer and heads of terms

Once price and key commercial points are broadly agreed, the parties often record the deal in Heads of Terms (also called Heads of Agreement or a Term Sheet).

Heads of Terms are usually ‘subject to contract’ (not legally binding on the main deal), but they are still important because they:

set expectations;
drive the timeline; and
prevent expensive misunderstandings later.

Cost-saving tip: A well-drafted Heads of Terms is one of the cheapest ways to avoid a costly negotiation spiral later on.

2) Confidentiality and exclusivity

Before sensitive documents are shared, you’ll usually sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement).

Sellers often ask for exclusivity, i.e. you spend money on due diligence and lawyers while they agree not to negotiate with anyone else for a short period.

Important consideration: Exclusivity can be reasonable, but it should be:

time-limited;
tied to progress milestones; and
clear about what happens if the seller delays.

3) Due diligence (legal, financial and tax)

Due diligence is the investigation stage. In a share purchase, this is where you look for anything that could make the business worth less than you think, or that might create expensive problems after completion.

Typically:

your accountant covers financial due diligence;
tax specialists cover tax due diligence; and
we handle legal due diligence and coordinate the overall legal workstream.

We also work closely with highly experienced accountants and tax advisers to ensure the deal is structured sensibly from the outset (rather than trying to fix tax issues once the documents are drafted).

4) Drafting and negotiating the SPA (Share Purchase Agreement)

The Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) is the main contract. It sets out:

what’s being bought and sold;
the purchase price and how/when it’s paid;
conditions to completion;
warranties, indemnities and limitations; and
what happens if something goes wrong.

5) Completion and post-completion

On completion day:

money and shares change hands,
director/shareholder changes are implemented, and
filings are made (e.g., Companies House).

Post-completion tasks can be deceptively important – particularly if you’re changing banking arrangements, supplier accounts, insurances or key contracts.

What legal due diligence actually looks at (in plain English)

For acquisitions under £5m, legal due diligence is not about producing a glossy report that gathers dust.

It’s about asking what could hurt you after completion, and how do we either:

fix it before you buy; or
price it into the deal; or
protect you contractually.

Here are the areas we commonly focus on:

Key contracts: Are major customers/suppliers tied in? Are there change-of-control clauses that allow termination if you buy the company?
Employment: Are there key staff, restrictive covenants, grievances, or unpaid holiday liabilities?
Property: Is the premises owned or leased? Are there landlord consents needed for a change of control?
IP and brand: Does the company actually own its website, domain, software, trademarks, designs and content?
Data protection: Are there obvious compliance gaps (particularly with customer data and marketing lists)?
Disputes: Ongoing claims, threats, historic settlement agreements, regulatory complaints.
Corporate housekeeping: Are Companies House filings up to date? Are there missing board minutes, share issues, or unclear ownership?
Insurance: Are policies adequate and transferable?
Tax flags: Share purchases often involve hidden tax risk, which is why coordinated tax input matters early.

Cost-saving tip: A clean, organised data room from the seller can materially reduce fees. Conversely, poorly organised information almost always means more time (and therefore more cost).

Warranties, disclosures and indemnities: the ‘protection layer’ in a share purchase

In a share purchase, you can’t physically separate liabilities from the company, so the SPA usually becomes your protection tool.

Warranties

Warranties are contractual promises from the seller about the company (e.g. contracts, litigation, tax compliance).

If a warranty turns out to be untrue, you may have a claim, but only if:

it’s drafted properly;
it’s not ‘disclosed against’; and
the contract doesn’t limit your remedies too heavily.

Disclosures

Sellers disclose known issues (e.g. “there is a dispute with Customer X”). A properly managed disclosure process is a core part of risk allocation.

Indemnities

Indemnities are usually used for known, specific risks (e.g. a tax investigation, a threatened claim, or a contaminated lease issue). They can offer more direct protection than warranties.

Timelines: how long does an SME acquisition take?

As a broad rule of thumb, many share purchases under £5m complete within 4–12 weeks once heads of terms are agreed – but it can be faster or slower depending on:

the seller’s readiness and document organisation;
whether there is property involved;
how quickly due diligence questions are answered;
the complexity of the SPA negotiations; and
funding arrangements and lender requirements.

If speed matters, we can structure the deal plan around priorities and milestones, so you’re not paying for unnecessary drafting before the main risks are understood.

The cost question: how much should legal support cost for a share purchase under £5m?

Cost is a completely reasonable concern and, for many buyers, the legal spend is one of the few controllable variables in the transaction.

Our approach: fixed fees, scoped to your deal

We offer fixed fees, calculated based on the size and complexity of the transaction, and agreed in advance.

Fixed fees start from £7,500 + VAT for a very simple share purchase.
Regulated businesses (and deals with heavy property/employment complexity) generally require more work and therefore higher fees.

We are able to remain competitive because our model is built around:

efficient, tech-enabled working practices;
a scalable team approach; and
transparent, flexible fees.

What drives cost up (so you can plan for it)

The biggest cost drivers on SME acquisitions are typically:

multiple shareholders/sellers (more negotiation, more signing logistics);
incomplete company records;
property (leases, consents, title issues);
complex customer contracts or change-of-control issues;
deferred consideration/earn-outs/vendor finance; and
regulated sectors (where approvals or compliance steps can be significant).

A quick real-world example

We regularly advise SMEs and owner-managed businesses on acquisitions.

A typical example is acting for a recruitment business carrying out a series of acquisitions of rivals to expand its market reach. In those cases, the legal work needs to be:

repeatable (so every acquisition doesn’t reinvent the wheel);
risk-focused (so the buyer doesn’t accumulate hidden liabilities); and
cost-controlled (so legal fees don’t erode deal value).

That’s exactly the kind of pragmatic, commercially-minded approach we aim to bring.

Why instruct Elysium Law for an SME acquisition?

For many acquisitions under £5m, you don’t need a large City team with a long list of chargeable timekeepers.

What you need is:

an adviser who understands deal mechanics;
who can run a disciplined process;
who knows where SME deals usually go wrong; and
who keeps fees proportionate to the value of the transaction.

Elysium Law was built to provide high quality, cost effective and strategic advice, with a model designed to cut unnecessary friction and expense.

Clients frequently highlight clear explanation and cost transparency in their feedback to us.

Next step: a free, no-obligation call

If you’re considering buying a UK business – whether you’re a first-time buyer or building a buy-and-build strategy, we’re happy to have a free, no-obligation call to discuss the deal, likely risks, and how we would price the work.

You can contact us on 0151 328 1968 or email clerks@elysium-law.com.

Unfair Prejudice Petitions under Section 994 of the Companies Act

Posted on 20 Jan 202620 Jan 2026 by Ruby Keeler-Williams

Unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 remain a significant tool in shareholder disputes. They are also among the most commonly misunderstood.

While the jurisdiction is deliberately flexible, the courts have consistently made clear that it is not a remedy for every commercial disagreement or breakdown in working relationships.

Many petitions arise in closely held companies where trust has eroded and communication has failed. In those circumstances, it is often assumed that the court will intervene to impose a fair outcome, but that is not the case. The focus of the court is not on whether a situation feels unfair, but on whether the conduct complained of departs from the basis on which the shareholders agreed to associate.

This article explains how the courts approach unfair prejudice petitions in practice, with particular reference to 50:50 companies, quasi-partnerships, deadlock and breakdown of trust. It also considers the continuing influence of the House of Lords’ decision in O’Neill v Phillips [1999] 1 WLR 1092 and the strategic importance of buy-out offers in relation to the outcome of the dispute and potential costs exposure.

The statutory framework and the meaning of unfairness

Section 994 allows a shareholder to petition where the company’s affairs are being conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members.

Two elements must therefore be established:

There must be prejudice to the petitioner’s interests as a shareholder; and
That prejudice must be unfair.

The concept of unfairness is not assessed by reference to abstract notions of morality or reasonableness. The court is concerned with whether the conduct complained of breaches the legal or equitable basis on which the shareholders agreed to operate the company. That may arise from the articles, a shareholders’ agreement or from understandings that formed part of the foundation of the relationship.

The jurisdiction is therefore fact sensitive, but it is not open ended. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that section 994 is not a mechanism for correcting every commercial disappointment or personality clash.

The continuing importance of O’Neill v Phillips

The modern approach to unfair prejudice is anchored in the decision of the House of Lords in O’Neill v Phillips [1999] 1 WLR 1092. The judgment remains central because it imposed discipline on a jurisdiction that had, at times, been treated as an invitation to litigate commercial grievances under the banner of equity.

Lord Hoffmann made clear that unfairness will usually require either:

a breach of the company’s constitution or shareholders’ agreement; or
the frustration of a legitimate expectation arising from an understanding or promise on which the petitioner relied.

A mere breakdown in relations, even if severe, is not enough.

Lord Hoffmann also emphasised that the court is not there to resolve all commercial fall-outs or to redistribute risk retrospectively when a business relationship ceases to work.

Quasi-partnerships and legitimate expectations

Despite the constraints imposed by O’Neill, the courts continue to recognise that some companies operate, in substance, as quasi-partnerships, despite being incorporated.

In small, owner-managed businesses, it is not uncommon for personal relationships and informal understandings to sit alongside formal documentation.

Where a company has the hallmarks of a quasi-partnership, the court may look beyond the strict legal rights set out in the articles. Exclusion from management, removal from decision-making or conduct that undermines an agreed basis of participation may amount to unfair prejudice, even if technically permitted by the company’s articles (Re Guidezone Ltd [2000] 2 BCLC 321).

That said, the existence of a quasi-partnership is not assumed, rather it must be established by reference to evidence, including the history of the relationship and the role each shareholder was intended to play. Not every small company will meet that threshold.

Deadlock and breakdown of trust

Deadlock is a common feature of unfair prejudice petitions, particularly in companies with equal shareholdings. However, deadlock alone does not justify relief.

The courts distinguish between:

Neutral deadlock, where parties simply cannot agree; and
Unfair deadlock caused or exacerbated by one party’s oppressive or obstructive conduct.

Where parties are simply unable to agree, the court will not intervene merely because the company is no longer functioning smoothly. By contrast, where one party’s conduct has undermined mutual confidence or deliberately obstructed the company’s affairs, the analysis may be different.

In Re A Company (No 004475 of 1982), the court held that where a relationship of mutual confidence has broken down due to one party’s conduct, relief may be justified even in the absence of technical wrongdoing.

Even in those cases, the petitioner must demonstrate that the conduct crosses the threshold of unfairness. Incompatible personalities or poor communication will rarely suffice alone.

Conduct capable of amounting to unfair prejudice

In practice, successful petitions tend to involve clear departures from the agreed basis of the relationship.

Common examples include:

Exclusion from management contrary to an understanding;
Abuse of majority voting power;
Attempts to force a shareholder to sell at an undervalue;
Diversion of business opportunities;
Withholding financial information; and
Manipulation of remuneration or dividends.

Conduct or behaviour that is merely abrasive, uncooperative or discourteous is unlikely to found a claim unless it forms part of a wider pattern of inequitable conduct. The court is concerned with substance rather than tone.

Remedies and valuation

Where unfair prejudice is established, the court has wide discretion as to remedy. The most common outcome is an order requiring one shareholder to purchase the other’s shares.

In quasi-partnership cases, shares are usually valued on a pro rata basis, without a minority discount and on a going concern basis. The valuation date is typically the date of the order, although the court retains discretion where fairness requires a different approach.

Valuation issues are often as contentious as liability and early consideration of valuation principles can materially influence litigation strategy.

The strategic importance of buy-out offers

A key practical lesson from O’Neill v Phillips is the significance of a properly framed buy-out offer.

An offer is likely to undermine a petition if it:

Is made in good faith;
Reflects a fair value;
Applies orthodox valuation principles; and
Does not seek to exploit the petitioner’s minority position.

Where such an offer is refused unreasonably, the court may view the continuation of proceedings as oppressive or abusive. That can have serious costs consequences, even if some elements of unfairness are established.

From a strategic perspective, early consideration of exit options and valuation can often provide a more controlled and proportionate route to resolution than prolonged litigation.

When to seek advice

Early advice is particularly important in potential unfair prejudice claims. Decisions taken at an early stage can affect costs exposure and the remedies ultimately available. Elysium Law advises both Petitioners and Respondents at this stage, helping to assess risk and determine the most appropriate course before positions become entrenched.

Shareholders should consider seeking legal advice where there is evidence of:

exclusion from management;
misuse of control; or
conduct that appears inconsistent with the basis on which the company was formed.

We can advise on whether those concerns are capable of meeting the statutory threshold under section 994 and how the court is likely to approach them in practice.

Equally, those facing a petition should seek advice promptly to assess the strength of the claim and whether strategic steps, including a properly framed buy-out offer, may limit risk and costs.

Unfair prejudice litigation can be complex, fact-sensitive and potentially expensive. Our role is to provide early, specialist advice that allows parties to assess whether proceedings are justified, how the case is likely to be viewed by the court and whether a negotiated exit or alternative dispute resolution may offer a more proportionate outcome.

Conclusion

Unfair prejudice remains a powerful remedy, but petitioners should be aware that the courts have consistently resisted attempts to use section 994 as a substitute for commercial negotiation or as a forum for airing general grievances.

Successful petitions tend to involve a clear quasi-partnership context, identifiable understandings about participation or reward and conduct that goes beyond friction into the territory of inequitable abuse.

If you are involved in a shareholder dispute and are concerned about whether conduct within the company may amount to unfair prejudice, or if you are facing a petition and wish to understand your position, we can advise.

Elysium Law provides specialist advice on unfair prejudice petitions, including early assessment of merits, strategic options, costs exposure and exit routes.

If you would like to discuss your circumstances in confidence, please contact us to arrange an initial consultation.

Lost Deposits for Kingsway Square Buyers?

Posted on 08 Jan 202608 Jan 2026 by Ruby Keeler-Williams

In my experience from speaking to clients, it is often only when a development delays or fails that buyers understand how their deposit was actually treated under the contract.

Buyers connected with the Kingsway Square development in Liverpool are in this situation. Contracts were exchanged and deposits were paid, but the development did not complete as anticipated. Sourced Development Group’s vehicle, Kingsway Square Limited, is now in administration

When this occurs, it is understandable to focus on the failure of the development itself. In many cases, however, the more immediate legal question is whether the buyer was properly advised by their conveyancer or solicitor before exchange took place about the risks within the contract, including how deposits and pre payments could be handled if completion did not take place.

We have addressed the circumstances in which buyers may have a claim in professional negligence.

In a previous article, we addressed the growing number of failed off-plan property schemes in England and Wales and examined in general terms the duties owed by solicitors in off-plan conveyancing transactions, including the obligation to identify and clearly explain material risks, the exclusion of standard contractual protections, the use of special purpose vehicle developers and the associated risks and the limitations of some security structures relied upon to reassure buyers.

This article is more specific and concentrates on the Kingsway Square development in Liverpool. It explains how the particular contractual structure used in that scheme affected the treatment of deposits, what buyers should look for in their own paperwork and how a lack of clear advice prior to exchange may give rise to a claim in professional negligence.

What buyers often assume about off plan deposits

Many buyers assume that money paid on exchange remains protected until completion.

That assumption is common because in most residential transactions, the deposit is held on a stakeholder basis.

In broad terms, holding the deposit on a stakeholder basis means the solicitor acts for both the seller and the buyer and the funds cannot be released to either party unless there is mutual agreement, or upon completion.

However, some off plan transactions depart from that model, such as Kingsway Square. Here, the deposit was instead held as agent.

Where a deposit is held as agent, the seller’s solicitor who holds the funds may pass the funds to the seller at any time after exchange (potentially immediately).

If the development then fails, which has happened here, a buyer may find that rescission does not automatically lead to a refund, because the money has already been passed to the seller and may have already been spent.

This is often the key difference between a situation where a deposit is recoverable and one where it is effectively lost.

Kingsway Square contract clauses and deposit risk

Buyers who are reviewing whether they were advised properly in relation to a development such as Kingsway Square should pay close attention to how the contract treats deposits and any additional pre payments.

Kingsway Square contracts that we have reviewed include provisions that depart from standard deposit protections. Some buyers who have approached us have raised concerns that these departures were not clearly explained to them by their solicitors prior to exchange.

Where a contract incorporates the Law Society Standard Conditions of Sale, but then disapplies specific conditions relating to how deposits are held, the buyer needs to be told clearly what that means in practice. Some buyers have indicated that this was not explained prior to exchange.

Further, where a deposit is held as agent and effectively treated as the seller’s money from the outset, even though completion may be a long way off, this needs to be clearly highlighted to the buyer before exchange. Unfortunately, it appears this may not have been the case for some buyers in this development.

A buyer may have contractual rights, including rescission, but if the money has been released and spent, they need to be informed that recovery may depend on the solvency of the seller or developer and the structure of any security arrangements. In that scenario, buyers can find themselves in the position of unsecured creditors, which is typically not what they expected when they paid a 20% – 30% deposit.

If money has been released as agent, it is even more important that the position regarding insurance is clearly explained. In the case of Kingsway Square, we have seen cases where buyers were informed that the seller had obtained insurance to protect the deposit. In fact, the contract expressly stated that the only obligation on the seller was to provide information so that the buyer’s conveyancer could themselves apply for a warranty. If the buyer’s conveyancer did not do so, then there was no protection for the deposit.

This is why the wording of the advice you were given matters. If you were not clearly warned that the contract treated the deposit as the seller’s money and had no protection, that is relevant when assessing whether the advice you received met the required standard.

How the deposit release mechanisms operated in practice

Some off plan contracts, such as those in the case of Kingsway Square, do not simply label deposits as being held as agent. They also set out a mechanism for releasing deposits and pre payments during the build. Buyers should look for language that requires the seller’s solicitors to transfer funds out of the client account upon request and for a wide range of purposes. Those purposes may include construction costs, but they may also include acquisition costs, professional fees, marketing and sales expenditure and the repayment of development borrowing.

If the funds can be drawn down for different purposes, the buyer may expect that the purpose of the funds be verified. In the Kingsway Square development, the contracts we have reviewed authorised the seller or developer to request payment from the solicitors upon receipt of a Schedule of Costs, invoice, account, fee note, or voucher. They did not require any form of certification by an independent party, nor impose conditions on how frequently or in what amounts such requests may be made. This allowed the developer to draw down the funds as soon as it produced its own internal paperwork, with no obligation to demonstrate genuine expenditure.

Furthermore, the contract removed any potential oversight by the seller’s solicitors. It expressly provided that the sellers’s solicitors were not required to review, verify, or enquire into the accuracy or authenticity of any Schedule of Costs or supporting documents before releasing the funds. This limited the role of the seller’s solicitors and meant that the release of funds occurred automatically on request.

When release categories are wide and verification obligations are limited, the buyer’s deposit and pre payments can operate in a manner that resembles development finance. Here, the buyers were exposed to the commercial risk that funds would be used up long before completion.

The contract also provided that all deposits and pre-payments received by the seller’s solicitors were irrevocably released to the seller and that the seller’s solicitors must send those funds to the seller or, at the seller’s direction, to the developer upon request. The buyer expressly acknowledged and agreed to this arrangement by entering into the contract. This meant that, once the contract had been entered into, the authority to release the funds could not be withdrawn. As a result, if buyers later became aware of the risks, they were unable to revoke that authority.

None of these items automatically means the contract is unenforceable. The issue is simpler and more practical. The question is whether the buyer was properly advised, in plain terms, that funds could be released early and what that meant if the development did not complete.

Buyers in this situation should ask themselves:

“Was I adequately informed as to how the deposit was treated under the contract and what would happen if the development failed?”

Security trustee arrangements and development finance priority

Kingsway Square documentation also refers to a security trustee structure. A trustee arrangement can, in some circumstances, provide protection and a route to recovery, but the details matters.

Buyers should check whether they have any direct enforcement rights or whether enforcement sits solely with a trustee, as was the case in this development.

Buyers should also be informed if the Trustee is associated with any other party to the contract.

It is also important to understand priority. If there is senior secured development lending, as in this development, lenders usually rank ahead of buyers. If buyer funds have been released and spent, the practical value of trustee security can be limited, particularly where recoveries are directed first to the main funder.

A measured way to think about this is that a trustee does not guarantee that deposits are ring fenced and, if the contract allows early release of funds and if senior secured lending ranks ahead, there may be little preserved value to protect buyers if the project fails.

This is a reminder that buyers should be advised as to the hierarchy and how any recovery would be obtained before they commit substantial funds.

When a claim against your solicitor or conveyancer may arise

Our review of whether you have a claim in professional negligence against your conveyancer will usually focus on the advice given before exchange.

A solicitor or conveyancer is not required to guarantee that an off plan development will complete. They are required to identify material risks and explain them clearly, so that the buyer is fully informed in relation to the agreement they are entering into before they commit to it.

In the Kingsway Square development, material risks included (but were not limited to) the following:

The deposit is held “as agent” rather than stakeholder;
The contract states the deposit or pre payments are “irrevocably released” and transferable out on request;
There is a drawdown mechanism that allows early release of funds during the build;
The permitted uses of funds are broad, including non construction categories;
The purpose for the funds or documentation demonstrating the need for the funds did not need to be verified;
The buyer has limited or indirect enforcement rights under any security structure.

If those features were present, a buyer may reasonably expect their conveyancer to draw attention to them to the forefront of the advice. They should explain the practical consequences and record this advice in writing.

Some buyers will still proceed, and that is their choice. In those circumstances, the conveyancer’s advice will not have caused the loss.

However many buyers, if properly advised, would have declined to proceed to exchange.

That is where causation often lies. The question is not whether the contract looked unattractive in hindsight. The question is whether the buyer would have acted differently if the risk had been properly explained at the time.

Group claims for off plan conveyancing negligence

A group claim approach to matters such as this is sensible where many buyers entered into materially similar contracts and suffered similar losses.

Where a number of buyers entered into materially similar contracts and encountered the same underlying issues, a group claim allows those shared issues to be examined for the group rather than repeatedly in separate cases. This can significantly improve proportionality, as legal costs that would otherwise be incurred individually can be spread across the group, making it more realistic to investigate and pursue claims that might be uneconomic on a standalone basis.

Individual circumstances still matter, particularly when assessing what advice was given and what a buyer would have done if properly advised. However, dealing with the common issues together can reduce duplication and allow us to focus attention on the issues that truly distinguish one claim from another.

There is also a practical benefit in proceeding alongside others who are facing the same situation. Litigation can be isolating and uncertain, particularly for individuals who have suffered significant financial loss. A group claim provides a degree of shared support and transparency, allowing buyers to understand how their position compares with others and how the overall strategy is developing. It does not remove the need for individual decisions or instructions, but it can make the process more manageable and less burdensome.

Our Experience

Elysium Law has represented hundreds of clients worldwide in actions of failed off-plan developments. Our experience and success rate in these claims is outstanding, with many multi-million pound recoveries for our client groups.

We continue to represent small and large groups of purchasers in multiple ongoing actions.

Due to our experience in these types of claims and our use of technology platforms for efficiency, we can offer competitive rates and recover the lost funds for our clients.

Who could benefit from our review

If you purchased an off plan unit at Kingsway Square, paid a deposit of 20%-30% and were not properly advised as to how your deposit was held and whether it was safe before exchange, you may benefit from our review of your circumstances.

Please contact us for a free initial assessment.

We will review your documentation, explain your options and confirm whether your case may be suitable for a group claim.

We will likely ask you to provide the following:

A copy of your Purchase Agreement;
Any correspondence with the developer, agent, or solicitor;
Any legal advice you received;
Evidence of payments made and whether any have been recovered.