header-logo header-logo

06 July 2012
Issue: 7521 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Companies

Re a Company 8097 of 2011 [2012] All ER (D) 163 (Jun)

It was established that the general discretion under s 1(1)(a) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 would require the balancing of factors that would include: (i) the protection of the public; (ii) deterrence; and (iii) the need and legitimate interest of the claimant. Further, there had been no rule that would prevent a court granting an order under ss 1(1)(a) and 17 of the Act from being made against a dishonest former director. The courts had a discretion unfettered by statute and it would be wrong for the court to fetter its discretion.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Aggressive sales tactics can add up to fraudulent trading even without proof of a particular deception or financial loss
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
Police powers targeting concealed identities at protests come with procedural conditions that could determine whether prosecutions succeed
back-to-top-scroll