RE: Supreme Court ruling25 Feb 2026 12:57
Here you go nice and simple.
Basically your trying to surface a nothing burger my dear pal!
In 2011, THG bought Myprotein from entrepreneur Oliver Cookson for a mix of cash and shares. 
• THG paid roughly £60 million (about £30m in cash plus shares) for the business. 
• Cookson later claimed that THG’s financial position was mis-represented and that he had been induced into the deal on incorrect assumptions about the value of THG’s shares. 
This led to a major High Court case in 2014 (The Hut Group Ltd v Nobahar-Cookson & Anor) in which: 
• THG claimed Cookson’s accounts overstated Myprotein’s financial performance and sought damages.
• Cookson and his trust counter-claimed that THG’s own financial position was misstated.
• The court found breaches of warranty on both sides and awarded damages to both: broadly a net win for Cookson of around £6–£7 million once damages and costs were set off. 
Cookson later tried to pursue further legal action including claims of misrepresentation and unfair prejudice, but these were not Supreme Court cases at that stage — they were primarily High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings. 
⸻
đź“ś 2. The Supreme Court Ruling (2026)
The Supreme Court decision you’re thinking of — which was handed down on 25 February 2026 — is not directly a ruling about the Cookson/Myprotein sale itself. 
Instead, the case was THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd, and the legal issue was:
Whether a statutory time limit applies to shareholder “unfair prejudice” claims under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. 
What the Supreme Court decided
• The dispute was brought by Zedra Trust Company, which was a minority shareholder in THG. 
• Zedra alleged that THG’s conduct was “unfairly prejudicial” to its interests and wanted to include complaints about actions (including share distributions) going back to 2016. 
• The key legal question was whether such a claim can be restricted — i.e., time-barred — by the Limitation Act 1980 (which sets general limitation periods for bringing claims). 
Supreme Court holding (2026):
âś… Unfair prejudice claims under the Companies Act are not subject to a statutory limitation period.
That means there’s no fixed “clock” under the Limitation Act that automatically bars these claims merely for being old. 
The Supreme Court restored what had for decades been understood to be the law — reversing a 2024 Court of Appeal decision that had imposed such a time limit. 
⸻
🧠So how it connects to Cookson
• The Supreme Court decision was about shareholder remedies and limitation periods, not about the original Myprotein sale or Cookson’s claims per se.
• The Myprotein dispute between THG and Cookson was earlier commercial litigation decided in the High Court (and subject to ordinary appeals) — it didn’t itself go to the Supreme Court on the merits of the sale. 
• The 2026 Supreme Court case does affect other minority shareholders
Sign In
Follow the stocks
