Akcil & Ors v Koza Ltd & Anor [2019] UKSC 40 – Hardwick Chambers

‘The first respondent (“Koza Ltd”) was a private company incorporated in England in March 2014. Koza Ltd was a wholly owned subsidiary of the sixth appellant (“Koza Altin”), a publicly listed company incorporated in Turkey and part of a group of Turkish companies known as the Koza Ipek Group (“the Group”). The Group was formerly controlled by the second respondent (“Mr Ipek”).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 22nd August 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Lucy Bone on Privilege in Internal Investigations- Littleton Chambers

Posted December 12th, 2018 in fraud, news, privilege, subsidiary companies, whistleblowers by sally

‘Internal investigations are increasingly being conducted by companies not only on regulatory grounds but also in response to employment issues such as whistleblowing and discrimination allegations. In SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006, the Court of Appeal has significantly widened the scope of legal professional privilege in the context of an internal company investigation. It will now be easier for the employer to assert privilege over employees’ witness statements and other documents generated in an investigation.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 26th November 2018

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Council wins Court of Appeal battle over stadium and state aid – Local Government Lawyer

‘Coventry City Council has won a Court of Appeal case in the latest round of a four-year long litigation saga over the city’s sports stadium the Ricoh Arena.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 15th October 2018

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Anchoring claims to a UK subsidiary – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

‘The recent decision of the High Court in Vattenfall AB v Prysmian SpA [2018] EWHC 1694 (Ch) is another example of claimants being allowed to use non-addressee English subsidiaries as anchor defendants for their competition damages claims. It is also another example of the court considering but not actually having to decide the interesting legal points around attribution of liability which potentially arise in such cases.’

Full Story

Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 7th September 2018

Source: competitionbulletin.com

English court had jurisdiction over conspiracy claim in gambling case – OUT-LAW.com

Posted August 13th, 2018 in conspiracy, fraud, gambling, Guernsey, jurisdiction, news, subsidiary companies by sally

‘A Guernsey-registered online gambling company can pursue a conspiracy claim against a group of Peruvian-resident customers in the English courts, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 10th August 2018

Source: www.out-law.com

Parent Company Liability for Human Rights Abuses in the UK? We Need Clarity – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘The liability of parent companies for the extraterritorial human rights abuses committed by their subsidiaries has increasingly become a critical topic for both corporate and human rights litigators. The absence of national and international laws comprehensively addressing this issue created a space for creative arguments for and against holding parent companies of multinational groups incorporated in home States accountable for the human rights abuses committed by their subsidiaries in host States.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 24th July 2018

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Court dismisses Nigerian claim against UK parent company – OUT-LAW.com

Posted February 21st, 2018 in environmental protection, negligence, news, subsidiary companies by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim brought by two Nigerian community groups against Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) for environmental damage caused by one of its subsidiaries.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 21st February 2018

Source: www.out-law.com

Broker fined £4m by FCA over ‘truly independent’ claim – OUT-LAW.com

Posted December 13th, 2017 in financial regulation, fines, insurance, news, subsidiary companies by sally

‘An insurance broker has been fined over £4 million by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for failing to adequately manage potential conflicts of interest involving its parent company.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 12th December 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Interpretation of Article 24(2) Brussels Recast – Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws

‘In its recent decision in Koza Ltd v Akcil [2017] EWCA Civ 1609, the Court of Appeal interpreted the scope of Article 24 (2) Brussels I Recast, which governs exclusive jurisdiction “in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat”.’

Full Story

Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws, 10th November 2017

Source: jurisdictionandconflicts.net

UK mining firm in court over claims it mistreated environmental activists – The Guardian

‘A UK-registered mining company, which is now part of Glencore, is facing claims in a London court that it hired security forces to mistreat environmental activists protesting about a copper mine in Peru.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 31st October 2017

Source: www.theguardian.com

Permission for judicial review fails in diverted profits tax case – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 12th, 2017 in appeals, judicial review, jurisdiction, news, subsidiary companies, taxation by sally

‘Permitting judicial review of the issue of a diverted profits tax (DPT) charging notice would “undermine parliament’s intent”, the High Court has decided in a case concerning oil and gas distributing company, Glencore Energy.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 11th July 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Control of Documents – New Square Chamber

Posted April 14th, 2016 in civil procedure rules, disclosure, documents, news, subsidiary companies by sally

‘What happens when a party to proceedings refuses to give disclosure of documents held by its subsidiary? Can the parent company simply refuse to give disclosure on the basis that the subsidiary is a separate legal entity? CPR 31.8 provides that a party is obliged to give disclosure of documents in its “control.” In Ardila v ENRC [2015] EWHC 3761 (Comm) Males J sought to reconcile the competing first instance and appellate decisions on whether a parent company can be said to control the documents of its subsidiary.’

Full story

New Square Chambers, 11th April 2016

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Petter v EMC: Employment Share Schemes, Choice of Forum and Anti –Suit Injunctions – did the CA take a step too far? – Employment Law Blog

‘In granting the anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation in Petter v (1) EMC Europe Limited (2) EMC Corporation [2015] EWCA Civ 828, the CA considered that it was upholding the policy in section 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for the protection of employees from being sued other than in the courts of their domicile. But was it exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction to regulate the lawful conduct of foreigners, and interfering in the process of justice in the court of a friendly foreign state?’

Full story

Employment Law Blog, 13th August 2015

Source: www.employment11kbw.com

Insolvency–when can secondary proceedings in other member states be opened? – 11 Stone Buildings

Posted July 25th, 2015 in EC law, insolvency, jurisdiction, news, subsidiary companies by sally

‘Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Discussing the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) judgment in Comité d’entreprise de Nortel Networks SA, John Jessup of 11 Stone Buildings says the significant point to be taken from this case is that those who plan to open, or have opened, main insolvency proceedings can do little to prevent secondary proceedings being opened in another member state.’

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, July 2015

Source: www.11sb.com

HSBC should face UK criminal charges, says former public prosecutor – The Guardian

‘HSBC’s Swiss arm is potentially open to a range of criminal charges in Britain because there is “credible evidence” that it has had a role in enabling tax evasion, according to a former director of public prosecutions.’

Full story

The Guardian, 22nd February 2015

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

First-tier Tribunal holds that there is no taxable supply where there is no obligation on a subsidiary company which was receiving subsidiary services from the Group parent – Commercial Disputes Blog

Posted August 28th, 2014 in appeals, news, subsidiary companies, taxation, tribunals by sally

‘In Norseman Gold plc v HMRC[1] the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Colin Bishopp) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal by Norseman Gold plc (“Norseman”) against assessments made pursuant to section 73 VATA 1994 to recover input tax which had been claimed by it, on the basis that as Norseman had not imposed a charge for its services to its subsidiary companies, there was no taxable supply, for which the company could recover the VAT incurred.’

Full story

Commercial Disputes Blog, 27th August 2014

Source: www.rpc.co.uk

Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd (Westbrook Dolphin Square Residential 1 Ltd intervening) – WLR Daily

Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd (Westbrook Dolphin Square Residential 1 Ltd intervening) [2014] EWHC 2433 (Ch);  [2014] WLR (D)  330

‘A “proposed purchase price” contained in a notice by qualifying tenants seeking to exercise a right of enfranchisement for the purposes of section 13(3)(d)(i) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 must be a genuine offer as opposed to a nominal figure.’

WLR Daily, 17th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted February 28th, 2014 in corporation tax, EC law, insolvency, law reports, subsidiary companies by sally

Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) [2014] UKSC 11; [2014] WLR (D) 90

‘A company was entitled to make successive claims to cross-border group relief against corporation tax in relation to the same loss incurred in the same accounting period by a European subsidiary which had gone into liquidation and then to withdraw any earlier claims in respect of the same surrendered loss which did not meet the subsequent judicially determined test, subject to the claim ultimately relied upon not being statute-barred.’

WLR Daily, 19th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Marks and Spencer plc (Respondent); Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Marks and Spencer plc (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Posted February 21st, 2014 in corporation tax, EC law, law reports, subsidiary companies by sally

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Appellant) v Marks and Spencer plc (Respondent); Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Marks and Spencer plc (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 11 & [2013] UKSC 30 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 19th February 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

The Dow Chemical Co v Commission of the European Union – WLR Daily

Posted October 7th, 2013 in appeals, competition, EC law, joint ventures, law reports, subsidiary companies by sally

The Dow Chemical Co v Commission of the European Union (Case C-179/12P); [2013] WLR (D) 363

“For the purposes of establishing liability for participation in an infringement of article 101FEU of the FEU Treaty, where two parent companies each had a 50% shareholding in a joint venture company which had committed an infringement, and only in so far as the commission had demonstrated that both parent companies did in fact exercise decisive influence over the joint venture, those three entities could be considered to form a single economic unit and therefore form a single undertaking for the purposes of article 101FEU.”

WLR Daily, 26th September 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk