header-logo header-logo

08 March 2013
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Company—Derivative action—Permission to continue with derivative claim

Re Fort Gilkicker Ltd; Universal Project Management Services Ltd v Fort Gilkicker Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 348 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 313 (Feb)

Chancery Division, Companies Court, Mr Justice Briggs, 26 February 2013

CA 2006 did not abolish the “multiple derivative action”; and a derivative action may be brought by members of an LLP on behalf of a company wholly owned by that LLP.

James Bailey (instructed by Olephant Solicitors) for UPMS. Marion Smith (instructed by DWF LLP) for P and FGPL.

Prior to the coming into force of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), derivative actions, by which a member of a company was exceptionally permitted to litigate a cause of action vested in the company where the company was unable to do so, were governed by common law. The ordinary derivative action (by a member of the allegedly wronged company) was wholly replaced by the statutory derivative claim provided in CA 2006, which conferred locus standi only upon a member of the relevant company. The proceedings concerned an application by a company

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
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
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
back-to-top-scroll