header-logo header-logo

22 July 2010
Issue: 7427 / Categories: Case law , In Court
printer mail-detail

Law digest: 23 July 2010

Company; Customs and excise; Libel; Extradition; Broadcasting; Shipping

Company

Iesini and others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and others [2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 108 (Jul)

A derivative claim might only be brought under the Companies Act 2006 and was one in which the cause of action was vested in the company, but where the claim was brought by a member of the company. The cause of action had to arise from an actual or proposed act or omission involving negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust by a director of the company. The Act required a two-stage procedure where a member himself had brought the proceedings. At the first stage, the applicant was required to make a prima facie case for permission to continue a derivative claim. At the second stage, something more than establishing a prima facie case was needed. The court would have to form a view on the strength of the claim in order properly to consider the requirements of ss 263(2)(a), and 263(3)(b), of

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll