A suspended Reform UK Member of Parliament, James McMurdock, has had two of his companies prevented from being wound up due to unpaid Covid-related government loans, according to recently disclosed information. McMurdock, the MP for South Basildon & East Thurrock, voluntarily suspended himself from the party in 2025 amid scrutiny over his handling of these loans.
Following a more than 20-month legal battle for disclosure, the Department for Business and Trade revealed that it intervened directly to block the dissolution of two firms formerly owned by McMurdock—JAM Financial Ltd and Gym Live Health and Fitness Ltd—before he took office in 2024. This intervention was part of the department’s “dissolution objections process,” designed to prevent borrowers from evading repayment of Bounce Back Loans by striking off companies that still owed money.
Records show that attempts to suspend the dissolution of both companies in 2023 were halted after the company regulator received an objection. Until now, the identity of the objector and the reasons for the objection had not been publicly disclosed. The Department for Business and Trade confirmed it opposed winding up the companies because they had not repaid their Bounce Back Loans. Initially, the department sought to withhold this information, citing commercial sensitivity.
In a ruling issued last month, Judge Alexandra Marks of the First-tier Tribunal’s General Regulatory Chamber criticized the department’s reasoning for withholding details, stating there was no evidence that disclosure would undermine lender-customer confidence, business reputations, or future trading opportunities.
McMurdock responded to the revelations by stating that his businesses have now been closed and that he does not owe any money. He maintained that all previous statements he had made on the matter remain accurate and expressed gratitude for the opportunity to be “vindicated.”
Reform UK was contacted for comment but did not provide a response. The Department for Business and Trade said it met its legal obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and complied with the tribunal’s ruling in disclosing the information within the required timeframe.
