In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has changed the law on directors’ duties. Peter Knox KC, Adam Riley & Remy Choo explain
- Sets out the facts in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another, as well as Lord Leggatt’s views on directors’ duties, accessory liability, and orders for account of profits.
- Also explains the Supreme Court’s consideration of and adoption of the Singapore Court of Appeal’s reasoning in PT Sandipala.
On 15 May 2024, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another [2024] UKSC 17, [2024] All ER (D) 60 (May). This article breaks down some of the main points arising out of this landmark decision.
High Court
The respondents in the appeal were two companies (Lifestyle). Lifestyle brought proceedings against some 16 defendants claiming remedies for the infringement of registered trade marks and passing off. The group of defendants included two family-owned companies, Continental Shelf 128
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=1da8eda2_1)
