“The court had no jurisdiction under Pt 26 of the Companies Act 2006 to sanction, so as to make binding on dissentients, a scheme of arrangement which had as its purpose the distribution of property held by a company on trust.”
WLR Daily, 26th August 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case is fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Stone & Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) v Moore Stephens (a firm) [2009] UKHL 39; [2009] WLR (D) 277
“A company, which was in the exclusive control of its sole director and shareholder so as to be primarily liable for frauds committed against third parties, could not bring an action for damages against its auditors on the basis that they had failed to detect ‘the very thing’, namely its fraudulent activities, they were engaged to prevent since any such claim would be based on the company’s own illegal conduct and was accordingly debarred by the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“An interest rate of 15% agreed in a contract between two companies was not a penalty and was justified, the Court of Appeal has said. The interest, which had been ruled unlawful, can be charged, said the Court.”
OUT-Law.com, 30th July 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
Progress Property Co Ltd v Moore and another [2009] EWCA Civ 629; [2009] WLR (D) 214
“The sale of a company’s assets at an under value by a company having control of selling and buying companies did not make the sale a dressed up unlawful distribution of its assets or ultra vires the company if the person arranging the sale honestly believed the transaction to be other than a gratuitous distribution of the company’s assets to shareholder, even though that person was the director of the selling and buying companies.”
WLR Daily, 29th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Brent London Borough Council v Risk Management Partners Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 490; [2009] WLR (D) 179
“A local authority had no power, by virtue of s 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 or s 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, to enter into an arrangement with a company to carry on a mutual insurance business.”
WLR Daily, 11th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Local authorities have been barred from joining together to form an insurance company. The Court of Appeal has blocked London authorities from forming the mutual firm, ruling that councils acted beyond their powers and broke procurement rules.”
OUT-LAW.com, 10th June 2009
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Financial Services Authority is facing a multimillion-pound compensation claim from a group of investors who say that the City watchdog failed to stop the activities of a suspected rogue trader.”
The Times, 5th March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Oak Investment Partners XII v Boughtwood and others [2009] EWHC 176 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 39
“In an appropriate case, where a significant shareholder, who, as a result of being such a shareholder, was appointed to a management role within the company, then engaged in a course of conduct in that role involving improper assertion of rights of control over the practical management of the affairs of the company, that conduct was capable of being conduct of the affairs of the company in an unfairly prejudicial manner for the purposes of s 994 of the Companies Act 2006.”
WLR Daily, 9th February 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Regulators could be given the power to fine companies and order them directly to stop doing something under new laws to come into force in the UK on Wednesday.”
OUT-LAW.com, 29th September 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
“The law on companies’ display of names at their premises will change in three weeks’ time. From 1st October companies will have to display their registered name anywhere they do business, but will no longer have to put it on the outside of buildings.”
OUT-LAW.com, 11th September 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
“In order for companies to qualify for exemption from a taxable charge under s 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, they had to be ‘associated’ not only at the time of leaving the group but also at the time of the relevant intra-group transfer. On the proper construction of the section, the use of the word ‘associated’ on its second appearance was not redundant but required the court to consider whether that word was intended to serve some purpose and was not redundant.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 published
Full text of Act (PDF)
Source: www.opsi.gov.uk
IIG Capital llc v Van der Merwe
Court of Appeal
“Where shareholders of a company over which they had complete control borrowed money for the business, the question whether they guaranteed to repay the loan as principal or as secondary obligors had to be assessed in that context.”
The Times, 25th June 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The owners or controllers of a business can also enjoy protection as employees. The conditions that must be satisfied before such protection exists have now been clarified in a new ruling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).”
OUT-LAW.com, 5th March 2008
Source: www.out-law.com
“The date when significant parts of the Companies Act come into force has been put back a year. It will now be 1st October 2009 instead of 1st October 2008, according to the UK Government.”
OUT-LAW.com, 7th November 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Government has delayed the introduction of some of the remaining provisions of the Companies Act 2006, a wide-ranging overhaul of UK company law, it was announced today (7 November).”
The Times, 7th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Britain’s biggest investors have written to the Government to demand changes to the new Companies Act, which they say prevents them from taking action over unsatisfactory behaviour by businesses.”
The Times, 6th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The Government’s aim is to simplify company law and make it easier to understand, especially for small businesses – yet it is the longest piece of legislation passed by Parliament since it was established by Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century. Eight years in the making, the Act runs to 1,300 sections and 701 pages.”
The Times, 25th September 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“A number of parts of the Act are already in force. Put on the statute book on November 8, 2006, it is being introduced in stages over two years. The Government intends that it will be fully in force by October 2008.”
The Times, 25th September 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The European Commission has proposed simplifying the law governing businesses in Europe just months after large parts of the UK’s new Companies Act came into force.”
OUT-LAW.com, 12th July 2007
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024