Court date finally set for Government’s Store First winding up petition

A court date has finally been set for the Government’s winding up petition against Store First and related companies.

The winding up petition was originally announced back in July 2017, but was then adjourned. The trial is now due to take place on 15 April 2019 (almost two years after the original announcement) at the Manchester District Registry of the High Court.

The Government is inviting Store First investors to contact them with information about their investment experience.

If you have information you would like to submit to the Insolvency Service in relation to your investment experience with Store First and related companies, please send your comments to

In Store First’s last accounts (June 2017), Store First director Toby Whittaker said “the directors were surprised to have the winding up petition issued having been fully co-operative with the Secretary of State’s requests” and “The company has instructed solicitors and intends to defend this vigorously”.

Group First, Store First’s holding company, has put in place a provision of just over £2 million to cover the cost of defending the winding up petitions, according to their last accounts.

Store First claimed in May 2018 that returns from its storage pods “continue to rise”.

One thought on “Court date finally set for Government’s Store First winding up petition

  1. The Adams v Carey Pensions (now called Options) appeal took place 2nd March 2021 and the judgment handed down April 1st 2021. There were two allegations by Adams and the appeal upheld one and dismissed the other. The one upheld was the claim under section 27 of FSMA. A good result.

    Carey had 580 clients in their SIPP who invested in the Storepods Scheme (judgment §8). I hope the other 579 now pursue a claim for compensation on the back of this win by Adams. There is now a light at the end of the tunnel for store pod victims.

    This could have significant consequences for SIPP operators in general, in terms of their professional indemnity insurance premiums.

    You can read the judgment here:-
    or just search for analyses and summaries of the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.