header-logo header-logo

22 July 2010
Issue: 7427 / Categories: Case law , In Court
printer mail-detail

Law digest: 23 July 2010

Company; Customs and excise; Libel; Extradition; Broadcasting; Shipping

Company

Iesini and others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and others [2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 108 (Jul)

A derivative claim might only be brought under the Companies Act 2006 and was one in which the cause of action was vested in the company, but where the claim was brought by a member of the company. The cause of action had to arise from an actual or proposed act or omission involving negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust by a director of the company. The Act required a two-stage procedure where a member himself had brought the proceedings. At the first stage, the applicant was required to make a prima facie case for permission to continue a derivative claim. At the second stage, something more than establishing a prima facie case was needed. The court would have to form a view on the strength of the claim in order properly to consider the requirements of ss 263(2)(a), and 263(3)(b), of the Act. Section 263(2)(a) would apply only where the court

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