header-logo header-logo

26 May 2017
Issue: 7747 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Company

O’Keefe and another v Caner and others [2017] All ER (D) 95 (May), [2017] EWHC 1105 (Ch)

The Companies Court ruled on a preliminary issue concerning limitation, which arose in a claim, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which had been brought by the applicant joint liquidators of two Jersey companies in liquidation in England. The claim alleged misfeasance and breach of directors’ duties by the respondents in respect of the various payments allegedly made from the companies’ bank accounts. The court held that the duty owed, under Art 74 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, was a fiduciary duty in the strict sense, and not tortious in nature. Accordingly, the prescriptive period for both causes of action, under Art 74, was 10 years, being the default period applicable to personal claims under Jersey law, and not three years, being the relevant period applicable to breach of trust and to tort under Jersey law, as the first to the fifth respondents had contended. Accordingly, the claims were not time-barred.

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll