Company—Derivative action—Permission to continue with derivative claim

Re Fort Gilkicker Ltd; Universal Project Management Services Ltd v Fort Gilkicker Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 348 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 313 (Feb)

Chancery Division, Companies Court, Mr Justice Briggs, 26 February 2013

CA 2006 did not abolish the “multiple derivative action”; and a derivative action may be brought by members of an LLP on behalf of a company wholly owned by that LLP.

James Bailey (instructed by Olephant Solicitors) for UPMS. Marion Smith (instructed by DWF LLP) for P and FGPL.

Prior to the coming into force of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), derivative actions, by which a member of a company was exceptionally permitted to litigate a cause of action vested in the company where the company was unable to do so, were governed by common law. The ordinary derivative action (by a member of the allegedly wronged company) was wholly replaced by the statutory derivative claim provided in CA 2006, which conferred locus standi only upon a member of the

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

Company—Derivative action—Permission to continue with derivative claim

Re Fort Gilkicker Ltd; Universal Project Management Services Ltd v Fort Gilkicker Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 348 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 313 (Feb)

Chancery Division, Companies Court, Mr Justice Briggs, 26 February 2013

CA 2006 did not abolish the “multiple derivative action”; and a derivative action may be brought by members of an LLP on behalf of a company wholly owned by that LLP.

James Bailey (instructed by Olephant Solicitors) for UPMS. Marion Smith (instructed by DWF LLP) for P and FGPL.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Rent reforms unleash tribunal turmoil

A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting

NLJ this week: Jury cuts won’t cure court crisis

Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test

NLJ this week: Brain data could rewrite family justice

Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law

NLJ this week: Offensive speech still protected, court rules

A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law

NLJ this week: Arbitration appeals face hard stop

The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end

Error message

Company—Derivative action—Permission to continue with derivative claim

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh