header-logo header-logo

08 September 2017
Issue: 7760 / Categories: Case law , Company , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Company

Randhawa and another v Turpin and another (as former Joint Administrators of BW Estates Ltd) [2017] EWCA Civ 1201, [2017] All ER (D) 40 (Aug)

The judge had erred in holding that the sole director of a company, whose articles of association had required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, had validly appointed joint administrators under para 22 of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. Among other things, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the sole director’s resolution had been incurably invalid in the circumstances, and could not have been rendered valid by the application of the principle arising from the decision in Re Duomatic Ltd ([1969] 1 All ER 161).

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
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll