Monek Limited (09767332): High Court Winding-Up Petition Hearing
A High Court winding-up petition against IT services provider Monek Limited (company number 09767332) was listed for hearing on 15 July 2026 under case reference CR-2026-000959. The petition was presented in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Companies Winding-Up List) at the Rolls Building in London.
Hearing details
| Detail | Information |
| :--- | :--- |
| Company Name | MONEK LIMITED |
| Company Number | 09767332 |
| Case Reference | CR-2026-000959 |
| Hearing Date | 15 July 2026 |
| Hearing Time | 10:30am |
| Court Venue | Court 30, The Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London |
| Jurisdiction | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Companies Winding-Up List) |
Company snapshot
Monek Limited is an active private limited company incorporated on 8 September 2015 under company number 09767332. The company operates under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 62090, designated for other information technology and computer service activities. Public records maintained by the Companies House register give its registered office address as Sterling House, F2/F3 Davidson Road, Lichfield, England, WS14 9DZ.
Under section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the presentation of a winding-up petition signifies an application asserting that the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. The appearance of an entry on the court cause list confirms active legal proceedings but does not constitute a determination of insolvency by the court.
Directors and ownership
Public filings on the statutory register establish that ownership of Monek Limited is held within a corporate parent structure. According to persons with significant control (PSC) filings, corporate entity Monek Group Limited was registered as a PSC on 27 February 2018. The parent company holds 75% or more of the equity shares, retains 75% or more of the voting rights, and holds the statutory right to appoint and remove a majority of the board of directors.
Prior to this arrangement, statutory filings record that Mr Miles Scott Carroll held between 75% and 100% of the company shares from 7 September 2016 until his interest ceased on 27 February 2018. In commercial risk assessment, parent-subsidiary governance models require advisers to examine potential cross-guarantees, inter-company balances, and group liability structures when evaluating counterparty credit.
Recent filings and statutory notices
In accordance with Rule 7.10 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, a petitioning creditor must advertise notice of a winding-up petition in The Gazette no less than seven clear business days after serving the target company, and no less than seven clear business days prior to the court hearing. Statutory advertisement serves as formal notice to creditors, trading partners, and financial institutions.
Relying solely on gazette notices leaves credit management teams exposed during the lag period between petition service and statutory publication. Conducting a routine winding up search or reviewing the winding up petitions list today provides finance directors with immediate visibility of court filings before public advertisement occurs.
What this means for suppliers, creditors and counterparties
The presentation of a winding-up petition triggers immediate legal consequences under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Section 127 renders void any disposition of company property, transfer of shares, or bank payment made after the petition presentation date if the court subsequently makes a winding-up order, unless validated by the court.
Upon receiving notice of a pending petition, commercial banks routinely freeze company accounts as a risk control measure. Account freezes prevent unvalidated payments that liquidators could later recover from the bank. For an operating business, this account freeze immediately halts trade payments, payroll disbursements, and supplier settlements unless the court grants a validation order.
Scenario: Section 127 void disposition risk for commercial suppliers
Consider a composite scenario involving an IT hardware vendor delivering server infrastructure to a corporate client under standard 30-day trading terms. The client owes an outstanding balance of £35,000 across unpaid invoices. Unbeknownst to the vendor, an unpaid creditor presented a winding-up petition against the client three weeks prior.
To reduce its ledger debt, the client pays £15,000 to the vendor. Six weeks later, the High Court hears the petition and issues a compulsory winding-up order, appointing a liquidator. Upon reviewing bank records, the liquidator identifies the £15,000 transfer as an unvalidated disposition of company property made after the petition presentation date.
The liquidator issues a formal demand requiring the vendor to repay the £15,000 into the liquidation estate. The vendor must return the funds and submit a proof of debt for the full £35,000 as an unsecured creditor, facing minimal recovery prospects.
Step-by-step risk mitigation protocol for credit control teams
1. Suspend Unsecured Credit Terms: Immediately place the counterparty on advance payment or cash-on-delivery terms to prevent post-petition ledger exposure.
2. Review Asset Security Charges: Perform a comprehensive company charge check on the statutory register to verify whether debentures or fixed charges encumber company assets.
3. Verify Court Listing Status: Inspect High Court listings or check the official roll to monitor whether the petition is adjourned, dismissed, or supported by other creditors.
4. Implement Real-Time Monitoring: Enable free company monitoring to capture automated alerts regarding statutory filings, accounts submissions, and officer movements.
How to run a winding up petition search and investigate further
Traditional due diligence relies on manual checks across separate databases, including Companies House filings, Gazette notices, and court dockets. This manual approach creates timing gaps, as court petitions take days or weeks to filter through to secondary registries.
Integrated corporate intelligence platforms aggregate High Court dockets, charge registries, and corporate filings into a continuous monitoring feed. Accessing direct court entries enables risk teams to detect active litigation at presentation, allowing proactive risk mitigation before bank accounts freeze. Executing a comprehensive winding up search before entering into major contracts ensures hidden legal liabilities are identified at onboarding.
For credit teams and suppliers
Credit managers, commercial solicitors, and risk analysts evaluating corporate counterparties must maintain thorough pre-contract checks. Failing to identify a pending High Court petition exposes suppliers to clawback demands under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and unrecoverable trade credit. Running a timely winding up petition search provides immediate verification of pending insolvency proceedings, allowing credit control teams to adjust payment terms before extending credit.
FAQ
What is the distinction between a winding-up petition and a winding-up order?
A winding-up petition is a formal court application presented by a creditor alleging that a company cannot pay its debts. A winding-up order is the court judgment granting the petition, placing the company into compulsory liquidation, ending directors' operational powers, and appointing an official receiver or liquidator.
Why do commercial banks freeze accounts when a petition is presented?
Banks freeze company accounts because section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 makes post-petition transfers void if a compulsory liquidation order follows. If a bank processes transactions on a petition-facing account, a liquidator can require the bank or recipient to repay those funds to the insolvent estate.
Can a target company obtain court permission to continue bank transactions?
Yes, a company facing a pending petition can apply to the High Court for a validation order under section 127. If the court is satisfied that continuing trade transactions or making specific payments benefits the general body of creditors or preserves trade value, it may issue an order validating specified disbursements.
What options exist for a supplier receiving funds after a petition is presented?
If a supplier receives payments after a petition presentation date and a winding-up order follows, those funds face clawback by the liquidator. The supplier must establish whether a court validation order protected the payment or seek legal counsel regarding retrospective validation applications.
How can credit analysts verify if a court petition has been dismissed?
Credit professionals can review High Court cause lists, request written confirmation from the petitioning creditor's solicitor, or check court registry dockets. Formal confirmation of dismissal, strike-out, or withdrawal is recorded on the court docket upon judgment or consent order approval.
How does a statutory demand relate to a High Court petition?
A statutory demand served under section 123(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 gives a company 21 days to pay a liquidated debt exceeding £750 or secure it to the creditor's satisfaction. Failure to comply or apply to set aside the demand creates a statutory presumption of inability to pay debts, enabling the creditor to present a petition.
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.