Peart Fencing Faces Winding-Up Petition

A winding-up petition has been presented against PEART FENCING LIMITED in the High Court of Justice. Records from the Central Registry of Winding-up Petitions show the filing was lodged on 26 October 2026 under case number CR-2026-008096.

The presentation of a petition is the earliest formal notification of an insolvency process initiated by an unpaid creditor under the Insolvency Act 1986. Presentation of a petition is not a determination of insolvency; the outcome of the action remains a matter for the court.

Petition details

The public records maintained on HMCTS CE-File record the following details for the action:

Creditors and counterparties tracking ongoing filings can inspect the latest daily updates on the daily winding-up petitions list.

Company snapshot

Public filings at Companies House show PEART FENCING LIMITED was incorporated on 23 February 2010. The company remains recorded with an active status. Its registered office is Baltic Works, Baltic Street, Hartlepool, England, TS25 1PW.

The company is registered under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 32990, covering other manufacturing not elsewhere classified. Filed balance sheet accounts and detailed financial breakdowns are [Shown in the creditor report →](#offers-creditor).

Directors and ownership

The register of officers at Companies House records one current serving director:

Historical directorships recorded on the register include Peter James Blenkiron (appointed 29 March 2012, resigned 11 May 2018), Samuel Roxbrough Denton (appointed 11 May 2018, resigned 31 March 2020), Andrew John Forster (appointed 21 July 2019, resigned 16 January 2026), Lee Mason (appointed 5 July 2018, resigned 31 March 2020), Sean Torquil Nicolson (appointed 23 February 2010, resigned 3 March 2010), Charles Frederick Peart (appointed 3 March 2010, resigned 11 May 2018), Roger David Hunter Peart (appointed 3 March 2010, resigned 11 May 2018), and Colin Stead (appointed 3 March 2010, resigned 11 May 2018).

According to the register of Persons with Significant Control (PSC), ownership control is held by a corporate entity:

Historical individual PSC registrations for Charles Frederick Peart, Roger David Hunter Peart, and Colin Stead were recorded as ceased on 11 May 2018.

Recent filings and Gazette activity

At present, the petition has not been advertised in The Gazette. Under Rule 7.10 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, a petitioner cannot publish notice of the petition until at least seven business days have elapsed following formal service upon the company at its registered office, unless the court orders otherwise.

To establish whether any fixed or floating charges remain secured against company undertakings, lenders and credit analysts can run a company charge check against the register.

What this means for suppliers, creditors and counterparties

The presentation of a winding-up petition under section 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986 introduces immediate legal and operational considerations. Once a petition is presented, section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 applies retrospectively if a winding-up order is subsequently granted. Under section 127, any disposition of the company's property, transfer of shares, or alteration in the status of members made after the presentation date is void, unless validated by court order.

Banks typically freeze a company's accounts upon becoming aware of a petition or its advertisement to protect themselves against section 127 liability. Consequently, commercial counterparties often risk-rank exposure through the following framework:

1. Stop unsecured credit extensions: Review open purchase orders and immediately suspend discretionary trading terms.

2. Check payment mechanics: Ensure receipts do not rely on disputed payments or voidable post-petition transfers.

3. Assess retention of title (ROT): Verify whether unpaid physical goods supplied to Baltic Works can be identified and reclaimed under enforceable contractual clauses.

4. Monitor court proceedings: Establish whether the company intends to satisfy the debt, apply for an injunction to restrain advertisement, or seek a validation order under section 127.

| Assessment Area | Impact Under Insolvency Act 1986 | Immediate Operational Action |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Bank Operations | Account freeze risk following notice | Request cleared funds before dispatch |

| Asset Transfers | Potentially void under section 127 | Require court validation for key transactions |

| Unsecured Debt | Pari passu distribution upon winding up | Lodge formal proof of debt with court/petitioner |

| Existing Contracts | Potential event of default triggers | Legal review of termination or offset rights |

For ongoing visibility across vendor or debtor portfolios, teams can configure free company monitoring to track court developments and Companies House filings.

Worked scenario: Commercial counterparty exposure

Consider an industrial supplier holding an outstanding balance of £42,000 for manufacturing components delivered to a business facing a newly presented petition. If the supplier continues to dispatch goods on 30-day terms without checking the court registry, any payment received after the petition date may be clawed back by an Official Receiver or liquidator under section 127 if a winding-up order is made.

By executing a timely winding up search before releasing further inventory, the supplier can identify the pending court action, halt further delivery, and require pro-forma payment or formal security before goods leave the warehouse.

How to investigate further

To examine the progress of CR-2026-008096, interested parties can monitor the official channels:

To conduct a comprehensive check against another counterparty or business partner, professionals routinely run a winding up petition search.

For credit teams and suppliers

Credit underwriters, legal counsel, and commercial lenders require definitive verification before committing working capital, signing commercial contracts, or completing debt refinancings. A winding up search provides pre-completion protection against undisclosed insolvency filings that have not yet appeared at Companies House. Missing an unadvertised petition exposes lenders and suppliers to severe clawback risks under section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

FAQ

What is a winding-up petition?

A winding-up petition is a formal legal application presented to the court, usually by an unpaid creditor alleging a debt exceeding £750 under section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, seeking an order to place the debtor company into compulsory liquidation.

Does presenting a petition mean the company is closed?

No. Presentation of a petition is the opening procedural step in legal proceedings. A company continues trading while the petition is pending, though it faces severe operational hurdles such as frozen banking facilities.

When does a petition get advertised in The Gazette?

Under court procedural rules, a petitioner must wait at least seven clear business days after serving the petition on the company's registered office before advertising, unless specific court dispensation is given.

Can a winding-up petition be withdrawn or dismissed?

Yes. If the company pays the petition debt, negotiates terms, disputes the debt on substantial grounds, or reaches an agreement, the petition may be dismissed, struck out, or withdrawn by leave of the court prior to a winding-up order being made.

Disclaimer

This report summarises a petition recorded at the Central Registry of Winding-up Petitions. 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.

View the company profile on CorpIntel