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

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.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

Error message

Company—Derivative action—Permission to continue with derivative claim

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven