Former owners of the collapsed Southport-based 79th Group have sought a High Court judicial review concerning aspects of the City of London Police investigation into the business. A judicial review examines whether a public authority acted lawfully and followed the correct procedure; it does not determine criminal guilt or innocence.
What Is Being Challenged?
Liverpool Business News reported in December 2025 that the group’s former owners had served the Commissioner of the City of London Police and Southwark Crown Court as part of an application for judicial review. The report said they were challenging aspects of the police handling of the case.
The earlier version of this article stated that a substantive hearing had been scheduled for November. We could not verify that date in reliable public sources, so the claim has been removed. The judicial-review process should also not be described as a review of the entire criminal investigation unless court documents establish that scope.
The Separate Police Investigation
In an official appeal published on 28 February 2025, the City of London Police said it was investigating suspected widespread investment fraud connected with the 79th Group. Police said four people had been arrested, property including cash, watches and jewellery had been seized, and all four people had been released on bail while enquiries continued.
Liverpool Business News reported in December 2025 that the four individuals maintained their innocence and that no charges had been brought at that point. An arrest, investigation or allegation is not a finding of guilt.
Administration and Judicial Review Are Distinct Processes
The 79th Group was placed into administration on 24 April 2025, according to the Liverpool Business News report. The administration process, the criminal investigation and the judicial-review application have different legal purposes. A judicial review does not automatically halt the work of administrators or resolve the substance of fraud allegations.
Any further report on the case should distinguish clearly between claims made by former owners, statements issued by police, administrative findings and decisions formally made by the court. Hearing dates and procedural outcomes should be attributed to court records or named legal representatives rather than presented without a source.
