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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

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

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
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
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’
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll