The dream is always the same: strike out on your own and build something that’s truly yours. Perhaps you’re spinning out from a university, commercialising years of research with a fellow academic who shares your vision. Or maybe you’re breaking away from the big corporate machine with a talented colleague you’ve worked alongside for years – a fellow biologist or chemist who shares your ambitions. Either way, you’re backing yourselves. You’ll do things differently. Better research and development autonomy. Proper work-life balance. A share of the recognition and profits that actually reflects your contribution.
For many in the UK’s life sciences sector, those ambitions translate into stable, productive businesses. Across the country, there are hundreds of successful innovators in early stage drug discovery, contract research, analytical testing, biotech development, pharmaceutical services and many more supply chain businesses besides. Effective partnerships are built on mutual respect, complementary skills, and shared ambition to scale up and address better health outcomes.
Yet as 2026 gets underway, it is worth considering that the start of the year often forces business owners to take a hard look at their relationships with fellow shareholders.
As with marital breakdown, it’s the most common time of year that a business owner comes to the decision that the relationship is not working and they believe that their objectives in life are not aligned with their fellow owner any longer.
Put more bluntly: respect and friendship has turned to indifference, to dislike, and the next stage is an irrational hatred. The person you trusted enough to leave secure employment with, to risk your mortgage for, to build a business alongside – you now can barely stand to be in the same room with them.
The best relationships are ones that are based on equality: similar ages and family situations, similar financial resources and the same aspirations for the future. There is a common longer-term goal.
When we start a business, one party may have the money and the contacts – often the older owner who’s built up a client base and reputation over decades – and the younger owner has the greater energy, drive and desire to work the longer hours, perhaps bringing newer technical expertise or specialist knowledge that the industry increasingly demands.
This works for a period of time, but differences can grow and issues fester. In life sciences, this can play out in any number of ways. Perhaps one partner still wants to be at the bench, actively involved in method development and validation, while the other has moved into business development and regulatory strategy or is on the lecture circuit. One may want to invest in cutting-edge instrumentation or expand services, while the other prefers to stick with established ways of doing things and proven revenue streams. One might be contemplating retirement while the other is just hitting their stride.
Yet the most common reason for shareholder disputes is simply that one of the owners believes the other is not doing their fair share of the work while taking the same pay. In scientific consultancies and service labs, this can be particularly acute: is winning the financing resource or the works contracts valued equally with running the analyses? Is business development as important as technical expertise and regulatory compliance? These questions, left unaddressed, become toxic.
Once the negative relationship has started, the problems are not discussed, and the problems are allowed to fester. It then becomes increasingly difficult to salvage the relationship, and the only solution is to bring the relationship to an end.
There is credible data, from analysing court actions, that in 2024 there was a threefold increase in shareholder dispute cases in court.
Court data reveals a threefold increase in shareholder dispute cases in 2024 – and there’s no reason to believe it slowed down in 2025 as the UK economy experienced, at best, sluggish growth. Life science businesses have been buffeted by a combination of inflationary pressures and an increasing volatility internationally, while fundraising environment has been fairly stark, piling on the pressure. While some commentators blame some, or all, of these woes on post-pandemic economic pressures and market resets, my own experience as a disputes lawyer suggests something simpler: business owners are increasingly willing to pursue formal proceedings earlier, despite the substantial costs involved.
The law in relation to shareholder disputes has not fundamentally changed to justify this increase, and shareholder disputes really come down to two very simple points: who is leaving the company and how much they are going to be paid for their shareholding. The rest is mainly positioning or framing your position – or, if you wish to use simpler language, noise.
Often by the time I’m instructed, the relationship has really turned sour and the irrational hatred has made the owners behave in a way they could not even believe themselves prior to the dispute.
There is a reason that shareholder disputes are often referred to as ‘corporate divorce’ – they are emotional and irrational.
The owner’s attention is drawn away from the business and the quality of their decisions is severely reduced due to their preoccupation with the dispute. The business suffers from not being managed properly. Staff often become aware of the dispute, which is at best unsettling for them and at worst prompts them to start looking for alternative employment. In the life sciences sector, where client trust, regulatory compliance and precise technical delivery depend on team stability and
focus, this can be particularly damaging. Sample backlogs mount, accreditation audits suffer, and your hard-earned reputation for scientific rigour can be destroyed far more quickly than it was built.
Too often, clients lose sight of the two core questions – who is leaving and the value of their shares – and they want to engage in a battle of solicitors’ correspondence. This rarely ends well – certainly not for your bank balance as a result of the legal fees incurred.
My advice: If you are starting out on a new relationship and new business venture, discuss your objectives and aspirations openly to ensure they align and will hopefully continue to do so in the future. Get a shareholders’ agreement in place that will help you manage a dispute.
Think about succession planning, exit timelines, and how you value your different skills and attributes – for example, how do you value the PhD-level specialist expertise versus the softer and less tangible management of client/people relationships and the ability to secure funding. Don’t assume that because you both understand molecular biology or any other scientific discipline, that you’ll understand each other.
If you are already in a relationship that is starting to turn sour, recognise the situation will only get worse for both of you if it is not discussed and resolved. It will not get better without being addressed by both of you. This is the best way to avoid a very expensive process with lawyers.
If the last few years have shown us anything, it’s that the world will throw enough uncertainty at your business. You don’t need to help it along by tearing it down with your fellow owner.
Written by Barney Leaf, Partner, Primas Law
