header-logo header-logo

16 December 2010 / Daniel Lightman KC
Issue: 7446 / Categories: Features , Costs , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Coming of age?

Daniel Lightman revisits the statutory derivative claim…three years on

The statutory derivative claim recently celebrated its third birthday. It was created by Part 11 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), which came into force on 1 October 2007.

This article first considers the approach which the courts have taken to the statutory derivative claim in its first three years, and then identifies two potentially significant issues as to the ambit of derivative claims which are currently unclear and await resolution by the courts, namely whether the common law derivative claim has been abolished and whether such claims can be brought in respect of a company in liquidation.

The two-stage application for permission

Because he is seeking to bring a claim not on his own behalf but on behalf of and for the benefit of the company of which he is a member, after issuing the claim form the derivative claimant must apply for permission to continue the claim. CA 2006 provides

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll