Written by Maxim Sealey, Associate Solicitor · SRA-regulated · Last reviewed 24 September 2026
Unfair prejudice petitions are unusual in English litigation because there is no statutory limitation period restricting when a shareholder can bring one, unlike almost every other civil claim, which must generally be issued within a fixed number of years of the events complained of. A shareholder who believes the affairs of a company have been conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to their interests can, in principle, bring a petition many years after the conduct in question, although delay can still affect the practical strength of the case and the remedies the court is willing to grant. Understanding this unusual feature is important both for shareholders considering a claim and for companies and directors trying to assess their exposure.
Prefer to speak to someone now? Call our team on +44 (0)20 3588 3500, or press the Enquire button at the top of this page and we will call you back.
What Is an Unfair Prejudice Petition?
Under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006, a shareholder can petition the court for relief where the company’s affairs are being, or have been, conducted in a way that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or to some part of the members, including the petitioner. Common examples include exclusion from management in a quasi-partnership company, improper diversion of business opportunities, excessive or improperly authorised director remuneration, or a failure to pay dividends for improper reasons.
If the petition succeeds, the court has wide powers to grant relief, most commonly ordering that the petitioner’s shares be bought out by the other shareholders or the company at a fair value.
Because these petitions are fact-heavy and often involve years of company history, they require careful preparation from the outset, including a clear timeline of events, supporting documentation such as board minutes, financial statements, and correspondence, and a realistic assessment of what remedy is actually being sought.
Why There’s No Fixed Time Limit
How This Differs From Most Civil Claims
Most civil claims in England and Wales are subject to a limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 — commonly six years for a simple contract claim, for example. Unfair prejudice petitions are treated differently. Because the remedy is equitable in nature and the relevant conduct is often ongoing rather than a single historic event, no fixed statutory limitation period applies in the same way.
Why This Doesn’t Mean Delay Is Free of Consequences
The absence of a strict limitation period doesn’t mean a shareholder can simply wait indefinitely with no downside. The equitable doctrine of laches can still apply, meaning that unreasonable delay in bringing a claim can, in some circumstances, affect the court’s willingness to grant relief, particularly if the delay has caused prejudice to the other party or if the shareholder’s conduct suggests they’ve effectively accepted or acquiesced in the situation they now complain of. Evidence also becomes harder to gather and more open to challenge the longer a claim is left, which can weaken even a fundamentally sound case.
What This Means for Shareholders Considering a Claim
If you believe you’ve been unfairly prejudiced as a shareholder — even if the relevant conduct happened some time ago — you are not automatically barred from bringing a petition simply because of the passage of time. This can be particularly relevant in family businesses or quasi-partnership companies, where a shareholder may have tolerated a difficult situation for years before deciding to act, whether out of family loyalty, uncertainty about their legal position, or hope that matters would improve.
That said, because delay can still weaken the practical strength of a claim and affect the remedies available, shareholders considering a petition are generally best served by taking advice and acting reasonably promptly once they’ve decided the conduct in question is something they intend to challenge.
What This Means for Companies and Directors
For companies and directors, the absence of a fixed limitation period means historic conduct can, in principle, still give rise to a petition long after the fact. This is a good reason to maintain clear governance records, ensure decisions affecting minority shareholders are properly documented and justified, and address shareholder grievances early rather than assuming that the passage of time will resolve the issue or place it beyond legal challenge.
A Common Scenario: Family and Quasi-Partnership Companies
Unfair prejudice petitions arise particularly often in family-run or quasi-partnership companies, where shareholders may have gone into business together on the basis of trust and informal understandings rather than a detailed shareholders’ agreement. It’s common for a minority shareholder in this kind of company to tolerate being excluded from decisions, underpaid relative to their shareholding, or otherwise sidelined for a considerable period — sometimes for family reasons, sometimes because they’re unsure whether they have a legal remedy at all.
Because there’s no fixed limitation period, a minority shareholder in this position isn’t automatically shut out from bringing a claim just because years have passed. This is an important point for shareholders who may have assumed that too much time has gone by for anything to be done, and equally an important point for majority shareholders and directors who may have assumed a long-standing arrangement is now beyond legal challenge.
Weighing Up Whether to Bring a Petition
Even without a strict deadline, deciding whether and when to bring an unfair prejudice petition involves weighing several factors: the strength and quality of the available evidence, whether the conduct complained of is ongoing or has stopped, whether a commercial resolution (such as a negotiated share buyout) might achieve a similar result without litigation, and the practical costs and time involved in pursuing a claim through the court. A shareholder who has waited a long time before acting should expect these questions to be scrutinised carefully, both by their own advisers and, if the case proceeds, by the court.
Alternatives to a Full Petition
Not every unfair prejudice grievance needs to end up in front of a judge. Because petitions can be costly and time-consuming, and because the relationship between the parties often continues in some form even after a dispute, it’s frequently worth exploring a negotiated resolution first — most commonly a share buyout agreed directly between the parties, sometimes with the assistance of an independent valuer to agree a fair price. Having a properly prepared petition ready to issue, or at least a clear and well-evidenced letter before action, often encourages a more constructive response from the other side than an informal complaint alone.
How Saracens Solicitors Can Help
Our Dispute Resolution and Corporate teams advise both shareholders bringing unfair prejudice petitions and companies and directors defending them. Whether you’re assessing the merits of a long-standing grievance or need to respond to a petition raised against your company, we can advise on the strength of the case, the likely remedies available, and the best strategy for resolving the dispute, whether through negotiation or formal proceedings.
Have a question about your specific situation? Call us on +44 (0)20 3588 3500 or press Enquire at the top of this page, our team responds quickly.
Frequently Asked Questions / Questions & Answers
Is there really no time limit for bringing an unfair prejudice petition?
Correct — there is no fixed statutory limitation period for unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006, unlike most other civil claims.
Does that mean I can wait as long as I like before bringing a claim?
Not entirely. While there’s no fixed limitation period, unreasonable delay can still affect the court’s willingness to grant relief under the doctrine of laches, and can make it harder to gather strong evidence. It’s generally best to act reasonably promptly once you’ve decided to pursue a claim.
What kind of conduct can amount to unfair prejudice?
Common examples include exclusion from management in a quasi-partnership company, diversion of business opportunities away from the company, improperly authorised director remuneration, and unjustified failure to pay dividends. Each case depends on its specific facts.
What remedy can the court order in a successful unfair prejudice petition?
The most common remedy is an order requiring the petitioner’s shares to be purchased by the other shareholders or the company at a fair value, although the court has wide discretion to order other relief depending on the circumstances.
Can a company avoid liability just because the conduct happened years ago?
Not automatically. Because there’s no fixed limitation period, historic conduct can still be challenged, although the practical strength of the case and the remedies available may be affected by the delay.
How can Saracens Solicitors help with an unfair prejudice petition?
We advise shareholders on bringing petitions and companies and directors on defending them, assessing the strength of the case, advising on strategy, and representing clients in negotiation or court proceedings.
