Judge’s order inappropriate
Court of Appeal
“It was inappropriate to make a declaratory judgment on an interlocutory application based on an allegation of contravention of the Companies Act 1985 when that would serve no useful purpose.”
The Times, 13th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“Half of the non-executive directors of UK businesses have deliberately limited their involvement in a major transaction because they fear being sued, a study has shown.”
The Times, 6th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Disgruntled shareholders in Northern Rock and other troubled British companies looking to pin blame on senior management will receive a boost next month with the introduction of new laws making it easier to sue individual company directors. ”
The Times, 24th September 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Gordon Brown was under pressure last night to explain why he has lifted a ban on ministers holding directorships as it emerged that his trade minister was listed on the board of a cleaning company, The Times can disclose.”
The Times, 22nd September 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Declaration of criminality made in civil proceedings
Chancery Division
“The court had power, in appropriate circumstances, to grant a declaration of criminality in civil proceedings brought by a private individual litigant.”
The Times, 14th August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Hawkes v. Cuddy and others [2007] EWHC 1935 (Ch)
“The court had jurisdiction to grant a declaration on a petition brought under s 459 of the Companies Act 1985 where the unfair prejudice relied on was caused by the alleged contravention of s 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by a director of a company in liquidation who had become the director of another company that was known by a prohibited name.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Aaron and others
“In directors disqualification proceedings, the court might at times need expert assistance on issues of fact, but, generally speaking, it was hard to see why a court should need expert evidence that was simply expert opinion when considering the key question of whether a director was unfit to be concerned in the management of a limited company.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Shierson and another v. Rastogi [2007] EWHC 1266 (Ch.)
The principle that judicial findings made in a previous case were not admissible in later proceedings as evidence of facts found only applied where a party in the second proceedings had not had opportunity, by himself or his privy, to challenge evidence adduced in the first hearing.
WLR Daily, 25th May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Eastaway (No. 2)
“A company director against whom disqualification proceedings were pending was not entitled to have an undertaking made under the Carecraft procedure (see In re Carecraft Construction Co Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 172) set aside and the disqualification proceedings dismissed on the ground that the Strasbourg court had concluded that his civil rights and obligations had not been determined within a reasonable time pursuant to art 6 of the Convention.”
WLR Daily, 10th May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case is fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Chiniah v. Director General of the Mauritius Revenue Authority
“A court could take into account a director’s dominant shareholding of a company in determining whether, under the law of Mauritius, he was a ‘principal officer’ of that company so as to be personally liable for income tax owed by the company.The Privy Council so held in dismissing an appeal by Jayram Chiniah from the order of the Court of Civil Appeal of Mauritius (YKJ Yeung Sik Yuen ACJ and P Lam Shang Leen J) affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius to dismiss his notice of motion for erasure of an inscription of privilege in the sum of Rs 6.9m over his property, taken under the authority of the Income Tax Act 1995, in respect of income tax for the years 1991–92 to 1994–95 due by a company, Chiniah & Sons Ltd of which he was, until 17 April 1996, a director.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2025