header-logo header-logo

Company

28 July 2011
Issue: 7476 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards and another [2011] EWCA Civ 855, [2011] All ER (D) 197 (Jul)

There was no express provision in either the Arbitration Act 1996 or the Companies Act 2006 which excluded arbitration as a possible means of determining disputes regarding an allegation of unfair prejudice. The test under s 1(b) of the 1996 Act that parties should be free to agree how their disputes were resolved subject only to such safeguards as were necessary in the public interest was a demanding test. It was not necessary in the public interest that agreements to refer disputes about the internal management of a company should in general be prohibited, nor was there any reason why it was necessary to prohibit arbitration agreements to the extent that they, in particular, applied to disputes whether a company’s affairs were being or had been conducted in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of its members. What the 1996 Act did was to give primacy to the arbitration agreement even in domestic disputes by making

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll