19/03/2026

Businesses facing shareholder disputes, director conflicts or corporate control issues can draw important lessons from the High Court decision in UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch).

Although the case gained attention for an unusual incident involving a witness using smart glasses during cross-examination, the judgment is significant for what it reveals about corporate governance failures, poor record-keeping, and the risks of informal business arrangements.

For companies, directors and investors, the case highlights how quickly disputes over ownership and control can escalate into complex and costly commercial litigation.

Smart Glasses, Serious Consequences

Few corporate disputes deliver the surreal spectacle seen in UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors. It was a case that centred on contracts, investments and company records, featuring a moment worthy of a courtroom drama when a key witness took the stand wearing smart glasses.

As the witness hesitated before answering questions, a mysterious voice emerged from the glasses, audible to the entire court. Once the judge insisted the glasses be removed, the same voice began speaking from a mobile phone hidden in the witness’ jacket. The witness had been using someone to coach him through his cross examination via the smart glasses. The impact was immediate. Whatever remained of the claimant’s credibility dissolved completely.

Beyond this unforgettable episode, the judgment in this case provides serious lessons for any business concerned with ownership, governance and risk. The entertainment might have been accidental, but the implications for companies are very real.

Why Corporate Governance Matters in Shareholder Disputes

At the heart of the case was a fundamental issue: who owns Oneta Ltd? A simple question became a legal maze because the entire ownership structure rested on improvised documentation with nothing formalised.

Agreements were informal, investments were undocumented and understandings lived in people’s memories rather than in writing. One group pointed to an investment agreement. Others relied on years of work contributed to the business. Another presented a settlement agreement printed on paper cut smaller than A4.

In other words, the entire ownership structure rested on improvised documentation. That is not a safe foundation for any company.

For businesses, the lesson could not be clearer. If ownership is valuable, it must be captured formally. If control matters, agreements must be written. Relying on goodwill, relationships or informal conversations is not corporate governance.

Commercial Litigation and the Importance of Credible Evidence

In any commercial dispute, the strength of your evidence is critical.

The judge’s findings in UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors made one thing clear: credibility is everything. The witness, who appeared to receive live coaching through his smart glasses and later through his phone, damaged the claimants’ case beyond repair. His evidence conflicted with documents he had previously signed. His recollection repeatedly failed at key moments. A single credibility collapse reshaped the entire dispute.

For businesses involved in commercial litigation, this underlines the importance of:

• Accurate and contemporaneous documentation
• Consistent internal records
• Properly prepared and credible witnesses

Credibility is often the deciding factor in business disputes, particularly where documentation is incomplete or disputed.

Are Informal Agreements Legally Binding?

One notable aspect of the judgment was the court’s willingness to uphold an unusual settlement agreement, created on cut down paper, misaligned, printed in multiple passes and reportedly signed outdoors. Despite its chaotic appearance, the court accepted it because the people giving evidence about it were consistent and believable.

For companies, the message is straightforward. Courts focus on the substance of what genuinely happened, not on perfect formatting. If your documentation reflects real agreements and is supported by credible evidence, it can still be effective. However, important commercial arrangements deserve better than improvised templates, irregular paper sizes and ad hoc signatures. My advice would be to document things properly and store consistently to avoid creating unnecessary legal risk.

Corporate Control and Compliance Risks: Companies House and Director Authority

The case exposed serious weaknesses in corporate control and compliance, including:

• Shareholder agreements that were never finalised
• Missing or informal investment records
• Directors continuing to act after having resigned
• Companies House authentication codes shared without controls
• Formal filings made without proper authority

Modern corporate control depends on paperwork and digital access just as much as on the legal rights behind them. A single email with authentication codes can shift control of a company. A missing agreement can change ownership. An informal understanding can become a point of dispute years later.

The way your company records decisions today will determine how strong your position is tomorrow should a director dispute or shareholder dispute arise.

Best practice for UK businesses:

• Restrict and monitor access to Companies House credentials
• Clearly define director authority and decision-making processes
• Maintain up-to-date statutory registers and filings
• Implement robust internal governance procedures

Preventing Business Disputes Through Strong Internal Processes

The case of UAB Business Enterprise & Anor v Oneta Ltd & Ors proves that substance always matters more than technical attacks.

In this dispute, one side challenged invoices, attacked the authenticity of agreements, questioned formatting and denied a long list of factual events. None of it worked, because the underlying story did not stand up. The other side had consistent evidence, reliable witnesses and a coherent narrative. That was enough.

For clients, the point is clear. Strong internal processes create strong external outcomes. Businesses must build factual clarity at the moment decisions are made, not years later. When a dispute arises, paperwork, credibility and consistency become your most valuable assets.

The Client Winning Summary

Governance costs far less than litigation. If a matter is important, write it down and store it properly. Treat your Companies House and digital authorisation credentials as securely as you treat your financial access points. The people who may one day speak on behalf of your business must be prepared, consistent and honest. And remember that your internal processes may one day be examined in detail by a court. Make sure they reflect the professionalism and discipline you expect from the rest of your business.

Above all, focus on clarity, evidence and formal agreements. They protect your business far better than any coach via smart glasses ever could.

Specialist Advice on Shareholder Disputes and Corporate Disputes

If you are unable to prevent a shareholder or corporate dispute, we can help. At Beswicks Legal, we advise businesses, directors and shareholders on all aspects of corporate law and commercial dispute resolution, including:

• Shareholder disputes
• Director disputes and breach of duty claims
• Company ownership and control issues
• Corporate governance and compliance
• Commercial litigation

Our approach is focused on protecting your commercial position, resolving disputes efficiently and minimising disruption to your business.

Speak to a Corporate Disputes Solicitor

If you are dealing with a shareholder dispute, concerns about company control, or require advice on corporate governance, early legal advice is essential.

Contact our team of corporate dispute solicitors to discuss your situation in confidence and protect your business interests. Phone 01782 205000, 0161 929 8494 or email enquiry@beswicks.com.