The appellant charterers appealed on questions of law against an arbitrators’ award of damages to the respondent shipowners for loss resulting from the delay in their ship, the Count, leaving Beira port. The delay resulted from the blockage of the approach channel by a grounded incoming vessel. The arbitrators found that there was a causal link between the grounding and the delay to the Count and that the grounding had been caused by misalignment of the buoys resulting from poor monitoring of th ...
|
The petitioner raised proceedings against the respondent for a disqualification order under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The events that gave rise to the petition arose out of allegations regarding the respondent's conduct in the course of the winding up of the company known as Oakbank (J&S) Limited.
|
The petitioner raised proceedings against the respondent for a disqualification order under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The events that gave rise to the petition arose out of allegations regarding the respondent's conduct in the course of the winding up of the company known as Oakbank (J&S) Limited.
|
The issues raised in this case were whether the defendant reinsurer was bound by a reinsurance treaty signed by an agent supposedly on its behalf, but without authority to do so, on the grounds either that the agent had ostensible authority to do so or, if not, on the grounds that that the defendant reinsurer ratified the contract. Held: the Claimant’s claim was dismissed since the Judge concluded that the defendant had not represented to the claimant that its alleged agent had such authority, a ...
|
The paramount purpose of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.213 was to compensate those who had suffered loss as a result of the fraudulent trading and it would defeat the effectiveness of the section in practice if liability were limited to those cases in which the board of directors of an "outsider" company was actually privy to the fraud of the company. The application of s.213 required a special rule of attribution in order to make its self-evident policy effective.
|
The effect of the terms of a disclosure letter accompanying a share sale agreement was that the disclosure requirement was satisfied in relation to such matters as might fairly be expected to come to the knowledge of the reporting accountants from due diligence examination of the documents supplied.
|
The House of Lords considered the question of whether a bank, notified by a third party of a freezing injunction granted to the third party against one of the bank's customers, affecting an account held by the customer with the bank, owes a duty to the third party to take reasonable care to comply with the terms of the injunction. Held: the bank did not owe such a duty of care. It was not fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty in all the circumstances of the case.
|
The main motivation behind an application for an administration order was a company's desire to obtain a higher sale price for property, which was not the proper purpose of such an order.
|
The House of Lords considered the question of whether a letter containing an acknowledgement of a debt was inadmissible for the purposes of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980, on the ground that the letter formed part of a negotiation with a view to the creditor giving the debtor time to pay or accepting a lesser amount. Held: the letter was admissible as proof of acknowledgment of a debt, notwithstanding that it was sent on a ‘without prejudice’ basis.
|
A costs order made against a shareholder of a company who was not originally a party to an action against it was justifiable if he had been instrumental in commencing or defending proceedings against it for his own benefit and not for its interest.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |