Current Awareness

In re Zavarco (No 2); Blomqvist v Zavarco plc and another (No 2); Blomqvist v Teoh and others – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in company directors, company law, estoppel, law reports, shareholders by sally

In re Zavarco (No 2); Blomqvist v Zavarco plc and another (No 2); Blomqvist v Teoh and others [2016] EWHC 1143 (Ch)

‘The shareholder claimed to have purchased a 66·6% share in the company, a United Kingdom holding company of a group operating in South East Asia. Following a substantial fall in the share price the shareholder requested that the directors call a general meeting of the company, which, by section 303 of the Companies Act 2006, they were required to do if they received requests from members representing at least 5% of the paid-up capital of the company. The directors refused to call the general meeting requested, contending that the shareholder’s shares were in fact not paid up. The shareholder served a notice pursuant to section 305 of the 2006 Act, by which a shareholder was entitled to call a meeting if the directors had wrongfully refused to do so. The company subsequently informed the shareholder that it had issued further shares to a Malaysian company reducing his shareholding to 1·17%. The shareholder commenced two actions, one by a petition for a declaration that the notice served by him under section 305 of the 2006 Act was valid and effective and a direction that the general meeting be held, and the other, by a Part 8 claim form for an order rectifying the company’s register of members to delete the additional share issue for want of authorisation.’

WLR Daily, 17th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corpn and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in covenants, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases by sally

Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corpn and another [2016] EWHC 1075 (Ch)

‘The tenant occupied the ground and basement floors of a building from which it operated a gallery. The lease contained terms reserving the landlord’s right to build and a covenant for quiet enjoyment. In order to carry out works on the adjoining upper floors of the building, the landlord erected scaffolding, which enveloped the building, restricting access to the tenant’s gallery and giving the impression that it was closed. The works also caused substantial noise in the tenant’s premises. No financial compensation was offered by the landlord to the tenant for the works undertaken.’

WLR Daily, 10th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (S) v Director of Legal Aid Casework – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in law reports, legal aid, litigants in person by sally

Regina (S) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2016] EWCA Civ 464

‘The claimant, a Nigerian national who lacked capacity to engage in litigation, applied for exceptional case funding pursuant to section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to assist him in making representations to the Home Office to recognise his position in the United Kingdom. The Director of Legal Aid Casework refused his application but the claimant was subsequently granted funding after he successfully claimed judicial review of the refusal on the ground that the guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor and applied by the Director was unlawful. Notwithstanding that grant, the claimant’s remaining challenge to the manner in which the exceptional case funding scheme was operated, which raised important issues of wider application, proceeded effectively as a test case. The claimant’s case was that the operation of the scheme created an unacceptable risk that individuals would be unable to make an effective application under the scheme and would therefore suffer a breach of their Convention rights or European Union rights. The judge allowed the claim, holding that (i) the manner in which the exceptional case funding scheme was operated meant that in practice the safety net intended to be provided by section 10 to enable individuals who would not otherwise qualify for legal aid funding to present their cases effectively without obvious unfairness was not being provided and (ii) the requirement in regulations 5 and 43 of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 that cases had to demonstrate an even or better than even prospect of success was unreasonable and the method of rating prospects of success was itself unsatisfactory. Accordingly he granted declarations that the exceptional case funding scheme, the 2013 Regulations and the guidance were unlawful.’

WLR Daily, 20th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

New fining powers for UK competition authorities proposed as part of regime reform – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 3rd, 2016 in competition, fines, news by sally

‘The UK’s competition watchdog could be given new powers to fine businesses that breach the formal commitments or undertakings they give to bring a competition investigation to a close under plans put forward by the government.’