Welsh insolvency specialist says rising costs, shrinking margins and unpaid bills are continuing to place businesses under severe pressure

BUSINESSES across Wales are continuing to face a difficult trading climate as rising costs, falling profits and cashflow pressures take their toll, an insolvency specialist has warned.

Government figures released on Friday (July 17) show there were 1,845 corporate insolvencies in June 2026.

That was four fewer than the 1,849 recorded in May and 10 per cent lower than the 2,048 reported in June last year.

However, Andy McGill, restructuring and insolvency partner at business advisory firm Azets, said the figures remained a cause for concern, with many directors struggling to keep their companies afloat.

Mr McGill, who covers Wales from Azets’ offices in Cardiff, Swansea and St Asaph, said Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidations continued to dominate the figures.

He said: “While 50 fewer took place compared with last month, CVL numbers remain higher than they were before the pandemic, as directors lack the confidence and cash to keep their firms open in a trading climate dominated by rising costs, shrinking margins and political and economic uncertainty.”

Compulsory liquidations also remain higher than they were at the beginning of the year, with creditors increasingly using the courts to recover unpaid debts.

Mr McGill said the patience shown by creditors during the pandemic had largely disappeared, with businesses and public bodies now watching payment deadlines more closely and chasing overdue invoices.

“Everyone is short of money, everyone is watching their payment deadlines and chasing unpaid invoices, and it is likely this will continue in the second half of the year,” he said.

“Times are tough for Britain’s businesses. It costs more to hire staff, profits are falling and cashflow levels are under pressure.

“Firms have been fighting financial fires in one form or another since 2020.”

He said increases in rents, business rates, materials, wages, products and energy had steadily reduced profit margins over the past six years.

Energy bills remained a particular concern for businesses that were unable to pass increased costs on to their customers.

Retailers and hospitality businesses were among those facing the greatest pressure, with some reducing recruitment as they attempted to control costs.

Mr McGill said that although sales volumes may be increasing in some sectors, this did not necessarily mean businesses were making more money.

“Many businesses are having to work harder simply to stand still,” he said.

“Where they can, they avoid passing their costs on to customers, but many simply are not able to do this anymore.”

The construction industry was also being affected by delayed project starts, planning difficulties, late payments, tight margins and rising material costs.

Mr McGill said improved summer weather could help increase construction output, although it remained unclear whether this would be enough to significantly improve conditions within the sector.

He urged company directors worried about their finances to seek professional advice at the earliest opportunity.

“It is a hard call to make and an incredibly tough conversation to start,” he said.

“But doing so while your worries are still new gives you more options and more time to decide your next step than if you wait until the problem becomes more severe.

“It usually gives you a better chance of turning the situation around.”

Specialist detection dog also found an SD card containing hundreds of indecent images of children

A CONVICTED sex offender hid an unregistered laptop beneath a kitchen counter while continuing to access indecent images of children in breach of a court order.

Joey Morgan, 53, of Ithon Road, Llandrindod Wells, pleaded guilty to two counts of making indecent images of children, two breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and one count of theft when he appeared before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on Saturday, July 11.

Morgan has been subject to indefinite notification requirements and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order since he was convicted of making indecent images of children in 2019.

He was convicted again in 2021 of possessing indecent images and breaching court-imposed restrictions while living in the Gwent area.

On Monday, July 6, plain-clothes officers saw Morgan using a black Acer laptop in a public area of a hotel in Llandrindod Wells.

The device had not been registered with police.

Under the terms of his Sexual Harm Prevention Order, Morgan was prohibited from owning a device capable of accessing the internet or storing data unless he notified police within three days of obtaining it.

When the laptop remained unregistered on Thursday, July 9, Morgan was arrested in Llandrindod Wells on suspicion of breaching the order.

Following his arrest, search officers and detectives attended his home with a specialist digital detection dog from South Wales Police.

The dog located the Acer laptop hidden beneath the kitchen counter behind a removable wooden plinth.

Officers also discovered an SD card concealed beneath the hallway carpet and a handheld games console hidden at the back of a mailbox in the communal area of the property.

None of the devices had been registered with police.

Digital forensic examinations revealed that the SD card contained hundreds of indecent images of children, including material classified as Category B and Category C.

Morgan also admitted during a police interview that he had stolen the games console.

He was subsequently charged with two breaches of his Sexual Harm Prevention Order, two counts of making indecent images of children and one count of theft. He admitted all five offences.

Morgan was remanded in custody and is due to appear before Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates’ Court on Friday, August 7, for sentencing.

Detective Inspector Anthea Ponting, of Dyfed-Powys Police’s Offender Management Unit, said: “There is no doubt that Joey Morgan is a dangerous individual who does not abide by the orders issued by the court and the requirements placed on him.

“I am grateful to the team of specialist units that worked together to bring Morgan back before the courts to sentence him for his offending. We await the result.”

Defence says there was no motive or intention to kill as judge reviews competing accounts of classroom knife incident

A JURY has heard the final arguments in the trial of a teenage pupil accused of attempting to murder a teacher during a knife incident at Milford Haven School.

The 16-year-old defendant, who was 15 at the time and cannot be identified for legal reasons, denies attempting to murder Vicki Williams on February 5.

He also denies causing grievous bodily harm with intent and unlawful wounding. He has admitted possessing a knife on school premises.

During closing speeches at Swansea Crown Court, the prosecution alleged the teenager deliberately selected a large kitchen knife, concealed it in his school bag and waited until Mrs Williams was alone before attacking her.

The defence said the teacher’s injuries were caused accidentally during a struggle after she saw the knife and attempted to confiscate it.

Mrs Williams sustained a one-centimetre wound to her scalp and cuts to her hands, which forensic pathologist Dr David Rouse said were characteristic of defensive injuries.

Prosecution alleges planned attack

Christopher Rees KC, prosecuting, told jurors the central question was whether they accepted the account given by Mrs Williams or that of the defendant.

He said emotion and sympathy should play no part in their decision and that the case had to be determined on the evidence.

“This was no accident,” Mr Rees said.

The prosecutor alleged the defendant brought the largest knife he could find into school and kept it hidden throughout the day.

The teenager has told the court he wanted to show the knife to his friends, but Mr Rees questioned why he had not shown it to anyone.

“The only person who saw the knife that day was his victim, Vicki Williams,” he said.

Mr Rees argued that the weapon had been concealed because the defendant did not want anyone to intervene or alert a teacher.

The prosecution alleged the teenager waited until the end of the school day, followed Mrs Williams into her classroom and closed the door so the incident could not be seen or heard.

Mr Rees said the defendant then moved behind the teacher and deliberately struck her in the head.

He described the teenager’s account as “a lie from start to finish” and said Mrs Williams had been his intended target.

Jurors were also reminded of CCTV footage showing the defendant approaching the classroom, walking away and returning later.

The prosecution said this showed he had waited until Mrs Williams was alone.

Mr Rees referred to an incident two days earlier in which one of the defendant’s friends kicked Mrs Williams’ classroom door while pupils were seen running away and laughing.

He said it was “no coincidence” that the teacher was injured two days later.

The prosecution acknowledged that there was no clear explanation for why the alleged attack happened but said it was not required to prove a motive.

Mr Rees reminded jurors that Mrs Williams said the defendant had a look of “pure hatred” on his face and that she believed she was going to die.

“She fought for her life,” he said.

The prosecutor argued that the defendant intended to kill Mrs Williams when the knife struck her head and urged the jury to convict him of attempted murder.

Defence says no motive established

Matthew Roberts KC, defending, said the prosecution had failed to prove that the incident was deliberate or that the teenager intended to kill.

“There’s a range of uncertainty and anything less than sure is a not guilty verdict,” he told jurors.

Mr Roberts said the defendant was considerably larger and stronger than Mrs Williams and argued that he could have killed her if that had genuinely been his intention.

He described the location and nature of the head injury as “curious” and said the wounds could equally, if not more convincingly, be explained by the defence account.

Jurors were reminded that Mrs Williams told one police officer shortly after the incident that she was unsure whether she had been struck with the handle because she had initially seen no blood on the blade.

She told other officers she had been stabbed.

The defence said there had been a genuine reason for the teenager to approach Mrs Williams because he was in an examination year and wanted to ask about his work.

Mr Roberts argued that if the defendant had planned an attack, he would have concealed the knife somewhere more accessible, such as beneath his coat, rather than keeping it inside his school bag.

He also said police had found nothing on the defendant’s phone suggesting the incident had been planned in advance.

The defence placed considerable emphasis on the absence of any apparent motive.

The court has heard there was no previous history of conflict, hostility or ill feeling between Mrs Williams and the defendant.

“There is no motive in this case,” Mr Roberts said.

“If you plan something, you usually have a reason for doing it.”

He argued that the incident had not involved a sustained attack and said jurors must decide whether Mrs Williams’ injuries were caused deliberately or accidentally during the struggle.

Mr Roberts also reminded the jury that the knife made contact with the skull, one of the hardest parts of the human body, despite there being other more vulnerable areas that could have been targeted.

The teenager’s grandmother previously told the court that he arrived at her home after the incident and said “something went in my head”.

The prosecution said the remark was an attempt to justify what had happened, while the defence argued it was inconsistent with planning or a settled intention to kill.

Mr Roberts acknowledged that taking a knife into school was “highly unwise” and said the defendant’s behaviour during his final school year had not been good.

However, he argued that poor behaviour did not establish an intention to murder.

Jurors were also reminded that the teenager answered “no comment” during his police interviews.

The defence said he had acted on legal advice and that it was hardly surprising for a frightened 15-year-old to follow the instructions given by his solicitor.

Mr Roberts said the defendant had no history of violence and had remained calm despite being subjected to lengthy cross-examination.

Concluding his speech, he said jurors could not look inside the defendant’s mind and that there was insufficient evidence to prove an intention to kill.

“Assume nothing, evaluate everything,” he told them.

Judge reviews teacher’s evidence

Judge Paul Thomas KC then began summing up the evidence heard during the trial.

He reminded jurors that his role was to review the evidence and explain the law, but that they alone were responsible for deciding the facts.

Turning to Mrs Williams’ account, the judge said she told the court that the defendant entered her classroom carrying a worksheet and asked whether the work he had completed was correct.

Mrs Williams said this raised concerns because it was unusual for the pupil to approach her in that way.

The teenager closed the classroom door, telling her he felt cold, and continued pointing to different parts of the worksheet.

Mrs Williams said he began moving around her desk and that his behaviour made her increasingly uneasy.

She told the jury that the teenager continued looking through his bag despite being reassured that his work was correct.

Mrs Williams said she asked him four or five times whether he was all right.

She became particularly uncomfortable when he closed the door because teachers were not supposed to remain alone in classrooms with pupils.

According to her evidence, the teenager then produced the knife and lunged towards her without saying anything.

Mrs Williams described his mouth as being in a straight line and said his eyes appeared full of hatred.

She told the court that her immediate thought was that she was going to die.

The teacher said she grabbed the knife and attempted to prevent the defendant from moving it towards her again.

She fell against a chair and raised her feet in an attempt to kick him away.

Mrs Williams described herself as “screaming blue murder” as she struggled to gain control of the weapon.

After taking possession of the knife, she went into a neighbouring classroom and asked a colleague whether she was bleeding.

Witnesses described her as looking extremely distressed, with the colour drained from her face.

She repeatedly asked whether her head was all right and whether she was going to die.

Mrs Williams told the court she believed the defendant had been trying to kill her, although she said there had never previously been any serious disagreement between them and she did not understand why the incident had happened.

The judge reminded jurors that the wound to her scalp was described as superficial, although evidence had also been heard about the pressure she felt when the knife made contact with her head.

Defendant’s account reviewed

Turning to the defendant’s evidence, Judge Thomas reminded jurors that the teenager said he entered the classroom to ask Mrs Williams for help with his work.

He said he was looking through his bag for a rubber when the teacher saw the knife and instructed him to hand it over.

The defendant said he refused because he feared getting into trouble.

According to his account, Mrs Williams then attempted to take the knife from him with both hands and the weapon “went everywhere” during the struggle.

He said he did not realise the knife had made contact with the teacher’s head.

The defendant told the court that Mrs Williams’ screaming became too much for him, causing him to drop everything and leave the classroom.

He denies deliberately stabbing her or intending to cause any injury.

The jury was told that the tip of the knife was damaged, but Judge Thomas said there was no evidence establishing how or when that damage occurred.

He warned jurors not to speculate about its condition.

Judge Thomas reminded the jury that he was summarising the competing evidence and was not expressing a view about which account should be accepted.

Jurors must decide whether Mrs Williams’ injury was caused deliberately and, if it was, whether the defendant intended to kill her or cause serious harm.

The jury is expected to begin considering its verdicts after the judge completes his summing-up.

The trial continues.