“Stephen Hockman QC has written a paper published by the Policy Network, entitled ‘Legislating for Responsible Capitalism: what it means in practice’.”
In the paper, he explores the legal amendments available to improve the monitoring, transparency and accountability of corporate practice.”
Full story (PDF)
Six Pump Court, 19th June 2013
Soruce: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
Prest v Prest and others [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] WLR (D) 237
“If a person was under an existing legal obligation or liability, or subject to an existing legal restriction, which he deliberately evaded or the enforcement he deliberately frustrated by interposing a company under his control, the court could ‘pierce the corporate veil’ but only for the purpose of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage which they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality.”
WLR Daily, 12th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A mother is suing her former solicitor for £15 million, claiming that his poor advice cost her millions of pounds in a divorce settlement.”
Daily Telegraph, 18th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“In this note Marcia Shekerdemian takes a closer look at the statutory codification of directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 (‘CA’) by reference to key case law, making this a highly practical guide for IPs who are considering bringing misfeasance claims under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA’).”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, June 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“In summary, the Supreme Court (comprising Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption and Lady Hale) has unanimously upheld the wife’s appeal and found that the Respondent group of companies held the assets on trust for the Husband. The assets therefore constitute property to which the husband is ‘entitled, either in possession or reversion’ for the purposes of section 24(1)(a) MCA.”
Zenith Chambers, 12th June 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
“On 12th June 2013, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34. For the second time this year, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil, the previous decision being that of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] 2 WLR 398 (a case in which a number of 11 SB members were involved). Unlike in VTB Capital, however, this time the Supreme Court grasped the nettle and gave some practical guidance as to the reach and limitations of the doctrine.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, June 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“John Wilson QC of 1 Hare Court analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel and considers its implications for family lawyers.”
Family Law Week, 14th June 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“The definition of ‘establishment’ in article 2(h) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 was to be applied with care where one was seeking to determine whether jurisdiction lay for a secondary winding up of a primarily foreign-based company.”
WLR Daily, 6th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Group Seven Ltd v Allied Investment Corpn Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 1509 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 224
“A company which had a sole director, who also owned all its shares, did not hold or control its assets in accordance with that sole director and shareholder’s ‘direct or indirect instructions’ within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the standard form freezing order in the Civil Procedure Rules.”
WLR Daily, 6th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 12th June 2013
“Does a one-man company metamorphose into one man simply because the person with a wish to abstract its assets is his wife?”
The Guardian, 10th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Millionaire businessmen will be able to ‘stick two fingers up’ at judges if the highest court in the land rules against a former wife in a high-profile divorce case this week, her lawyers said yesterday.”
The Independent, 9th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Following the Bribery Act 2010 the next instrument the Government is preparing in the ‘battle against economic crime’ is the Deferred Prosecution Agreement [‘DPA’]. Following a consultation in 2012 the Ministry of Justice inserted schedule 17 into the Crime and Courts Act 2013 [‘CCA 2013’]. Although the Crime and Courts Act 2013 received Royal Assent in April 2013, Schedule 17 is not yet in force.”
No. 5 Chambers, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.no5.com
“Companies that are required to undertake equal pay audits would not be required to make the results of those audits public, the Government has proposed.”
OUT-LAW.com, 28th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“It has long been recognised in English law that as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle a member of a company may bring an action on its behalf against wrongdoers who exert control over the company and who are preventing it from enforcing its rights, i.e. the single derivative action. A multiple derivative action potentially arises where the proposed claimant is not a member of the wronged company but is a member of the ultimate holding company. Since the coming into force of the Companies Act 2006, there has been considerable debate as to whether that legislation removed the common law double derivative action or even, in some quarters, whether such a common law action ever existed.”
Full story (Word)
New Square Chambers, 17th May 2013
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
“Employment litigation in the High Court is one of the most interesting and dynamic areas of practice. The cases tend to be fought at the point where countervailing currents commercial and employment law meet and many of the cases turn on resolving the tension between a bargain struck between commercial men and the portmanteau term of trust and confidence. That tension presents an opportunity for the creative advisor and a pitfall for the unwary”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 10th May 2013
Source: www.11kbw.com
“In a unanimous judgment handed down on 9th May 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed that the ‘balance
sheet’ test insolvency in section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is not a mechanical exercise of comparing the value of a company’s assets against the value of its liabilities; but a more sophisticated test requiring a judgment as to whether the present assets of a company will reasonably enable the company’s present and future liabilities to be met. In so doing, their Lordships rejected the ‘point of no return’ test formulated by Lord Neuberger MR in the Court of Appeal. Christopher Boardman reviews BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, 13th May 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
“Businesses can retain the right to use copyrighted software under sub-licences awarded by head-licensees in circumstances where those head-licensees are subject of a termination or become insolvent, the High Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Emily Marshall, family law professional support lawyer at Irwin Mitchell considers the possible implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in a commercial case on the forthcoming appeal in the Petrodel appeal, to be heard in March.”
Family Law Week, 11th February 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025