‘It is not unknown for overseas companies to use their own procedure for creating a charge, either in accordance with their national law or otherwise. This article considers whether such a charge is enforceable over property in England and Wales.’
Tanfield Chambers, 20th April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The UK government is to speed up its planned introduction of a new criminal offence for businesses that fail to stop their representatives from facilitating tax evasion following the so-called ‘Panama Papers’ leak, the prime minister has announced.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Corporate victims of fraud will send a “convincing message about their values” to investors and customers if they set aside their fears of reputational damage in order to publicly investigate and deal with the discovery, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘How odd, you might think. A company can suffer a detriment under the Equality Act 2010 and so bring a claim for direct discrimination. Yet a company is impersonal and protected characteristics are highly personal that only individuals can have. How can that be?’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th October 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘Major companies convicted of corporate manslaughter will face fines of up to £20m under new sentencing guidelines.’
The Guardian, 3rd November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Companies can be represented in court by McKenzie Friends under rights of audience granted in exceptional circumstances, the High Court has decided.’
Litigation Futures, 30th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘There have been plenty of Upper Tribunal decisions on RTM (we covered the UT decision in this case with six others back in December 2013 – our note here, where your correspondent would like it noted that he suggested that there was “plenty for the Court of Appeal to tuck into”), but there has only been one previous excursion into this area by the Court of Appeal. That case, Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd [ 2012 ]] EWCA Civ 1372 (our note), is quite the predecessor to Ninety Broomfield Road in that both cases concerned more than one block of flats seeking to exercise the right to manage together. And quite the oddity, too. The Court of Appeal in Ninety Broomfield Road has restored some sense to the application of RTM in multiple block cases. It is also plainly right (a seal of approval that will doubtless cheer the hearts of the Court of Appeal judges involved).’
Nearly Legal, 29th October 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The double negative is not in error. Shareholder disputes are frequently similar to an old fashioned divorce, with emotion and greed outgunning logic and truth in the contest for control of anything of value left over from the wreckage of a once prosperous partnership. But in the recent BVI case of Zhangyong v Union Zone Management Limited and others, the issue arose as to whether, as with a modern disaffected couple, unhappy shareholders could get a no fault divorce. In Union Zone, the Claimants had sought to establish unfair prejudice under s184I of the BVI Companies Act 2004 (which is similar in effect to s994 Companies Act 2006) but wholly failed to prove the alleged quasi partnership that underpinned the unfair prejudice allegations. The Claimants, who had pleaded winding up on the just and equitable ground as an alternative remedy for unfair prejudice, then sought to avail themselves of that as a free standing remedy, on the basis that it provided “a neat and fair solution”. The relevant question, however, was “a neat and fair solution to what?” The answer was, to their disenchantment with the manner in which the majority was conducting the business of the company. The authorities are clear: wide though the just and equitable jurisdiction may be, it is not a get out of jail free card for disaffected shareholders. Lord Wilberforce said, in Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries.’
New Square Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘Prosecutors are considering a file for a possible corporate prosecution over phone hacking at the News of the World.’
BBC News, 28th August 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Granting an option to purchase a shareholding to a party for a significant sum as relief for unfair prejudice was within the court’s discretion under the Companies Act 2006 s.996 despite valuation evidence showing the company was balance sheet insolvent.’
Tanfield Chambers, 14th July 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Mark Hubbard considers new legislation requiring greater transparency in the ownership and management of companies.’
New Square Chambers, 29th June 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘ Companies repeatedly convicted of regulatory offences should expect fines to be in the millions of pounds following a string of recent court cases.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Companies that persistently breach environmental regulations should expect a “substantial increase” in fines levied for their second and subsequent offences, judges in the Court of Appeal have warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Personal rights against a trustee, which were rights that any beneficiary, under any trust, would have to compel the trustee to administer that trust properly, did not fall within the definition of a “non-cash asset” under section 739 of the Companies Act 1985. Section 320(1)(a) of the 1985 Act was not intended by Parliament to apply to the rights or interests of the director himself, whatever they might be, when the non-cash asset was held in trust for him by someone other than the company itself.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Conducting business through a company provides tremendous benefits. The price to be paid for these benefits is disclosure – companies are required to disclose substantial amounts of information, with much of this information being disclosed to Companies House. Every day, suppliers, creditors, potential investors, credit agencies and other persons utilise information provided by Companies House to make informed commercial decisions. It is therefore vital that when Companies House records this information into the register of companies, that it is recorded accurately, with the recent case of Sebry v Companies House [2015] EWHC 115 (QB) providing a stark example of the disastrous consequences that can occur if information is incorrectly recorded.’
OUP Blog, 19th May 2015
Source: http://blog.oup.com
‘The negotiations are over, the deal is done. Now it’s time to sign the contracts. But before popping the champagne corks, you’ll need to make sure that those signatures are valid. Here’s a cautionary tale of what can go wrong.’
Technology Law Update, 1st May 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
In re International Game Technology plc and another [2015] EWHC 717 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 148
‘The court had jurisdiction under regulation 16 of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2974) to make an order approving a cross-border merger subject to conditions and that conditionality was merely a factor for the court to take into account in exercising its discretion unless the court was satisfied that a conditional order would be futile.’
WLR Daily, 19th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Pursuant to section 72 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a right to manage company could not acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building or part of a building.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The modern slavery bill now in parliament must ensure big business respects human rights in providing its goods and services worldwide, not just in the UK.’
The Guardian, 24th March 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The recent decision of Mr Justice Edis in DavisonSebry v Companies House and the Registrar of Companies [2015] EWHC 115 (QB) has highlighted how, in the interconnected age of the internet, the careless click of a mouse button can have incredibly far-reaching consequences and abruptly destroy the business of a successful company. The unusual facts would suggest that further cases against the Registrar (against whom judgment was entered) would be unlikely, not least because the reporting procedures are bound to be tightened up.’
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, February 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025