header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 October 2008
Issue: 7340 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Codified obstacles

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Bill Davies casts a critical eye over the new statutory derivative provisions

Two cases have recently tested the new statutory derivative provisions in the Companies Act 2006. In both Mission Capital plc v Sinclair [2008] All ER (D) 225 and Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch), permission to continue the derivative claim was refused.

Bringing a derivative claim was never easy and a large number of barriers were created by the courts in a bewildering array of cases. As a result, the Law Commission dubbed the claim “complicated and unwieldy” and a new statutory procedure was introduced in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). However, although many of the archaic rules have been swept away, the new provisions may still prove to be a formidable obstacle to any shareholder seeking to bring a claim.

Before the main action can be brought, a member must first file sufficient evidence at court to establish a prima facie case. He must then apply to court for permission to continue the claim. This is designed to enable the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll