Company
Re Glam and Tan Ltd Barnett (as liquidator of Glam and Tan Ltd) and another v Litras [2022] EWHC 855 (Ch) [2022] All ER (D) 51 (Apr)
The Chancery Division allowed the applicants’ application, in which they sought payment to a company that was in liquidation. Following incorporation, the company started to trade as a beauty salon. Its sole de jure director was the respondent. The first applicant liquidator sought relief on the basis that the respondent had breached her duties owed to the company. The court held, among other things, that the respondent was in breach of directors’ duties and was to contribute to the losses of the company by restoring the sum of £70,705.82, together with interest at 1% above base to judgment. However, it would not be just that L ought to be made personally liable to contribute sums wrongfully paid out when her free will had been subjugated to the will of her husband under threat of violence.
Copyright
Sheeran and others v Chokri and others [2022] EWHC 827 (Ch) [2022] All ER (D) 48 (Apr)
The
