Hargberg Cooper Ltd: Winding-Up Petition Hearing Listed at Rolls Building (CR-2026-004372)
Hargberg Cooper Ltd (Company Number 11182323) is scheduled to face a winding-up petition hearing at the High Court on 22 July 2026. Listed under case CR-2026-004372, the matter will be heard before a judge in the Business and Property Courts at the Rolls Building in London.
The petition alleges the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. This triggers the statutory mechanisms of section 122(1)(f) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides the court with the jurisdiction to make a winding-up order against the entity. For counterparties, suppliers, and lenders, the appearance of a company on the public cause list is a critical credit event requiring immediate risk mitigation.
Hearing and corporate details
| Detail | Information |
| :--- | :--- |
| Company Name | Hargberg Cooper Ltd |
| Company Registration | 11182323 |
| Case Number | CR-2026-004372 |
| Court | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Ch D) |
| Hearing Date | 22 July 2026, 11:00 am |
| Venue | Rolls Building, Court 1, London |
| Registered Office | 6 Ritherdon Road, London, SW17 8QD |
| SIC Code | 70229 (Management consultancy) |
Corporate structure and control
Incorporated on 1 February 2018, Hargberg Cooper Ltd operates within the management consultancy sector. Public filings indicate that the company has been managed by a single director, Mr Hargberg Cooper, since its inception. Control of the entity rests entirely with Mr Cooper, who is identified as the primary Person with Significant Control (PSC), holding more than 75% of the shares and voting rights.
Single-director entities facing insolvency proceedings present specific challenges for creditors. If the court grants a winding-up order, the Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service will immediately assume control of the company's affairs, replacing the director. The Official Receiver will then investigate the director's conduct to determine if wrongful trading, preference payments, or transactions at an undervalue occurred prior to the liquidation.
Expert analysis: Section 127 and pre-Gazette risks
At the time of publication, no petition advertisement has appeared in The Gazette. The absence of a statutory notice suggests the petition was recently served or that the parties are actively negotiating a settlement before the mandatory advertisement period expires.
However, the mere presentation of a petition activates section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Any disposition of the company's property, including bank transfers and asset sales, becomes void if a winding-up order is subsequently made, unless the court grants a specific validation order. High street banks typically freeze corporate accounts the moment they become aware of a petition, severely restricting the company's ability to trade or pay staff.
Worked scenario: Counterparty risk management
Consider a composite scenario where a commercial landlord leases office space to a consultancy facing a winding-up petition. Upon discovering the petition on the court cause list, the landlord's legal team immediately halts any ongoing lease renegotiations.
They recognise that accepting rent arrears payments without a court-sanctioned validation order places those funds at high risk of clawback by a future liquidator. Instead of banking the payments and assuming the matter is resolved, the landlord focuses on reviewing the lease's insolvency forfeiture clauses, securing the premises, and preparing a proof of debt form in anticipation of a formal winding-up order.
Actionable checklist for creditors
Legal teams and credit controllers exposed to Hargberg Cooper Ltd should execute a strict risk-mitigation protocol immediately upon learning of the hearing.
1. Halt credit facilities: Suspend all ongoing service delivery or supply of goods on credit terms. Transition the account to a pro-forma basis if trading must continue, though this still carries section 127 risks.
2. Assess existing security: Conduct a company charge check to establish whether other lenders hold fixed or floating charges over the consultancy's assets. This will dictate the priority of your claim in a liquidation scenario.
3. Quarantine incoming payments: Treat any post-petition payments received from the company as high-risk. Seek legal counsel on the necessity of a validation order before applying these funds to outstanding ledgers.
4. Review contractual triggers: Examine commercial agreements for ipso facto clauses or specific insolvency default triggers that allow for immediate termination of the contract.
Manual investigation vs. Corp Intel
Traditionally, tracking a winding-up petition requires professionals to manually cross-reference the daily High Court cause lists, search The Gazette for statutory notices, and pull the latest accounts from the Companies House register. This fragmented approach creates blind spots and delays, increasing the risk of trading with an insolvent entity without realising their bank accounts are frozen.
Corp Intel centralises these disparate data points. By aggregating court lists, statutory notices, and registry filings into a single dashboard, legal and finance teams secure a defensible audit trail. Professionals can set up free company monitoring to receive immediate alerts if a Gazette notice is published or if the company files new documents. Furthermore, users can run a comprehensive winding up petition search to identify if other creditors have joined the action or presented competing petitions, providing a complete picture of the company's financial distress.
Disclaimer
This report summarises entries on the published court cause list. Presentation of a petition is not a determination of insolvency; the outcome is a matter for the court. Companies believing they are named incorrectly should email contact@corp-intel.co.uk.