Progress Property Co Ltd v Moore and another – WLR Daily

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.

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack – Times Law Reports

Posted March 24th, 2009 in agency, fiduciary duty, law reports, secret profits by sally

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack

Court of Appeal

“An agent who made a secret deal with his principal’s employer breached his fiduciary duty to his principal, forfeited his agency fee and had to account for the secret profit.”

The Times, 24th March 2009

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.

Airtime reseller had no duty to sue O2, rules High Court – OUT-LAW.com

Posted March 6th, 2009 in contracts, fiduciary duty, interpretation, news, telecommunications by sally

“A mobile phone airtime reseller did not have a legal duty to take network O2 to court on behalf of a company which had sold it its subscriber base, the High Court has said. The Court said the claim was based on a mistaken interpretation of a contract.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 4th March 2009

Source: www.out-law.com

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack – WLR Daily

Posted February 17th, 2009 in agency, fiduciary duty, law reports, sport by sally

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63; [2009] WLR (D) 56

“An agent when negotiating with another person on behalf of his principal breached the fiduciary duty which he owed to his principal if at the same time he made with the other person an undisclosed side deal for his own benefit and there were a real possibility of conflict of interest. In such a case the agent was required to account to the principal in respect of the secret commission so received and was not entitled to receive any agency fees from the principal.”

WLR Daily, 17th February 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.