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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll