header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 May 2022
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 6 May 2022

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Company

Re Glam and Tan Ltd Barnett (as liquidator of Glam and Tan Ltd) and another v Litras [2022] EWHC 855 (Ch) [2022] All ER (D) 51 (Apr)

The Chancery Division allowed the applicants’ application, in which they sought payment to a company that was in liquidation. Following incorporation, the company started to trade as a beauty salon. Its sole de jure director was the respondent. The first applicant liquidator sought relief on the basis that the respondent had breached her duties owed to the company. The court held, among other things, that the respondent was in breach of directors’ duties and was to contribute to the losses of the company by restoring the sum of £70,705.82, together with interest at 1% above base to judgment. However, it would not be just that L ought to be made personally liable to contribute sums wrongfully paid out when her free will had been subjugated to the will of her husband under threat of violence.

Copyright

Sheeran and others v Chokri and others

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll