The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 reg. 3 was capable of applying to any transfers effected consequent upon an insolvency, including cases in which the insolvent transferor did not continue to trade or where no part of its undertaking was transferred as a going concern.
|
The secretary of state was not liable to make payments to transferred employees out of the insolvency fund, by virtue of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 reg. 8, because there were no insolvency proceedings in place when the business was transferred, and even if there were, they were not under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner.
|
The Insolvency Act 1986 s.212 was procedural in nature and provided an alternative means of enabling a company, to which a defaulting director’s duty was owed, to obtain recompense from that director for his breach of duty. It would be extraordinary if, finding that a claim brought by the company in liquidation against a defaulting director had been successfully non-suited on limitation grounds, the company’s liquidator could, in effect, ignore that result and advance the same claim again but in ...
|
C was the employer under a JCT contract 1998 Edition, With Quantities incorporating Amendments 1 of 1999, 2 of 2000 and 3 of 2001 under which D was the contractor. The contract was for the construction of apartments in Manchester. D had applied for an EoT and the architect had issued a certificate of non-completion, issued an interim certificate for payment and R gave notice of intention to deduct an amount as LADs. Subsequently the architect granted an EoT; D believed that the effect of the Eo ...
|
C had entered into a contract to design and install glazing for a project. The work included installation of windows in the spaces between vertical load bearing concrete columns and horizontal concrete floors. The windows had been tested off site but when tested after installation leaked. C incurred costs in remedying the defects and claimed an indemnity under the contractors all risks policy taken out by the developer. In order to remedy the defect the internal finishes needed to be broken open ...
|
The appellant company appealed against a decision to set aside statutory demands served by it on the respondent guarantors. Held (1) that where sureties to pay as principal debtors or primary obligors, a demand was unnecessary, even if it was expressed to be payable on demand. (2) Section 268 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules and the prescribed form of statutory demand, proceeded on the basis that the debt in question was immediately payable by the time that the statutory demand w ...
|
D had chartered C’s ship for 20 days to assist in the transhipment of crude oil from a stricken tanker. The ship was unlawfully detained for 108 days by the local port authority. D appealed against a decision that this delay was not such as to frustrate the contract. The CA held that application of the doctrine requires consideration of a range of factors including the terms of the contract, its context, the parties’ knowledge and assumptions as to risk at the time of the contract, the nature ...
|
C, a property developer, sought a declaration that D, the property owner was not entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of any estate or interest in land that had been the subject of an agreement between them before the grant of a planning consent for development and sought an injunction restraining such a sale. D counterclaimed seeking a declaration to the opposite effect. It was held that D was prevented from selling or otherwise disposing of the land while the agreement remained in force. T ...
|
The appellant trustees in bankruptcy appealed against a decision of the registrar not to suspend the running of the bankruptcy period pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s.279(3) for the respondent bankrupt. Held that the one-year period of bankruptcy imposed by s.279(1) of the Act was suspended where there remains substantial failures by the bankrupt to comply with his obligations to provide full details of his financial affairs under Part IX of the Act.
|
The appellant appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius in proceedings for the enforcement of securities granted by the respondent bank. Held that where a debtor had not objected to crystallisation of a floating charge, or contested its validity as he could have done under the Mauritian Civil Code, he could not contest the validity of the charge in later proceedings for validation of attachment orders.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |