“The High Court has found that liquidators under a voluntary liquidation are not data controllers for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA” or “Act”) and so are not personally responsible for compliance with the Act.”
Technology Law Update, 2nd September 2013
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
“It is a strange feature of the DPA subject access regime that, despite having extremely far reaching legal effects, to date it only rarely been the subject of judicial analysis. This is in no small part because the costs of bringing disputes over the application of the legislation before the courts are generally prohibitive. As readers of this blog will know, there have been some fairly recent county court judgments which have considered the application of the regime (see in particular the posts on the judgments in Elliott and Abadir here and here). However, jurisprudence emanating from the High Court has been decidedly thin on the ground. Today however the High Court has handed down an important judgment on the application of the regime: In the Matter of the Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited [2013] EWHC 2485 (Admin). Readers will want to note in particular that part of the judgment where the court considered the relevance of the applicant’s purpose or motive in making a subject access request (SAR) – as discussed below.”
Panopticon, 8th August 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The court must exercise its discretion when considering an application for an extension of time for compliance with a deadline stipulated in a court order by simply having regard to the overriding objective of the court to deal with cases justly pursuant to CPR r 1.1(1), notwithstanding that CPR r 1.1(2) had been amended to include the enforcement of compliance with court orders.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re GP Aviation Group International Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] EWHC 1447 (C; [2013] WLR (D) 223
“A bare right to appeal was not property within the meaning of section 436 of the Insolvency Act 1986.”
WLR Daily, 4th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ricoh Europe Holdings BV and others v Spratt and another [2013] EWCA Civ 92; [2013] WLR (D) 70
“A liquidator who had already valued a creditor’s contingent claims pursuant to rule 4.86 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and so admitted them to proof in the amount of the valuation was not under a duty to provide for the contingency in full by making a reserve against any distribution to members.”
WLR Daily, 19th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The court would not exercise its discretion under section 4(1)(b) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to make a disqualification order against a liquidator who had been guilty of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such liquidator unless serious misconduct had been established. Where a liquidator applied pursuant to section 16(2) of the Act for a disqualification order under section 4 it was not a prerequisite that the liquidator should have a financial interest in the order being made.”
WLR Daily, 10th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Claes v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation) (Joined Cases C-235/10–239/10); [2011] WLR (D) 74
“Articles 1 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC, concerning the procedure to be adopted upon collective redundancies, applied to the termination of the activities of an employing establishment as a result of a judicial winding up on grounds of insolvency, even where, in the event of such a termination, national legislation provided for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect. Until the legal personality of an establishment whose dissolution and winding up had been ordered had ceased to exist, the obligations under article 2 and 3 of the Directive, concerning consultation of employees and notification of public authorities, had to be fulfilled.”
WLR Daily, 9th March 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Gresham International Ltd and others v Moonie and others [2009] EWHC 1093 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 168
“The court had power, under its supervisory role of compulsory winding up and bankruptcy, to make orders that would effectively grant retrospective sanction to a liquidator who had issued proceedings in her name without first obtaining the sanction of the liquidation committee or the Secretary of State, as required under section 167 of the Insolvency Act 1986, notwithstanding that the criteria in r 4.184 (ii) of the Insolvency Rules as to the retrospective ratification of a liquidator’s acts had not been met.”
WLR Daily, 21st May 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.
Managa Properties Ltd v Brittain [2009] EWHC 157 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 42
“Where an application was made under s 172(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order directing the liquidator to call a creditors’ meeting for the purpose of seeking to replace the liquidator, the applicant had to show that it was in the best interests of the liquidation for such an order to be made.”
WLR Daily, 10th 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.
© Inner Temple Library 2024