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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
back-to-top-scroll