If the country of the principal winding up of an insolvent company was the “relevant country or territory” for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.426 and the liquidators in that country requested the English liquidators to remit to them the assets collected in England so that they could, pursuant to the insolvency law in that country, implement a universal scheme of pari passu distribution to ordinary unsecured creditors, the request was one to which, in principle, the English liquidators ...
|
The appellant shipowners appealed a decision which had granted a stay under s.9 of the Arbitration Act of proceedings commenced by the shipowner. Those proceedings sought a declaration that they had validly rescinded charterparties entered into with the respondent charterers on grounds of bribery. The Law and Litigation clause contained in the charters provided for any dispute ‘arising under’ the charter to be referred to arbitration. A sub clause made reference to a dispute ‘arising out of’ th ...
|
The House of Lords upheld the CA’s decision regarding the proper basis for assessing compensation due on the termination of an agency agreement that is subject to the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993. Under those Regulations, an agent is entitled to be compensated following the termination of the agency relationship unless the parties have agreed for the indemnity alternative to apply but no guidance is given as to the amount of compensation to be received. The House of Lor ...
|
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 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.
|
The three appeals concerned claims in tort for economic loss caused by intentional acts, covering between them at least 5 different causes of action: inducing breach of contract (Mainstream), causing loss by unlawful means (Hello!) interference with contractual relations (OBG); breach of confidence (Hello!) and conversion (OBG). There is helpful explanation of the nature and scope of the economic torts and clarification of the distinction between the torts of unlawful interference and of procuri ...
|
A, the appellant shipowner, (Golden Strait), appealed against a decision that it was not entitled to damages measured by reference to the full term of a time charter that had been repudiated by R, the respondent charterer (Nippon). R would have been entitled, by virtue of the war clause, to cancel the charter on the outbreak of the war in Iraq, had the charter still been running. The issue concerned the circumstances in which, where damages for an accepted repudiation are claimed, a party in bre ...
|
A, the appellants (Ritchie), had purchased farming equipment from R, the respondents (Lloyd), which turned out to be defective. R repaired the goods but refused to disclose the nature of the defect to A. A appealed against a decision of the Extra Division of the Court of Session that it had not been entitled to reject the equipment. The issue concerned the effect of s.35(6)(a) Sale of Goods Act 1979 on the buyer’s right to reject goods which, on delivery, materially disconform to the contract. A ...
|
The issue concerned whether an injunction should be granted against a person bound by an arbitration agreement to restrain him from commencing or prosecuting proceedings in breach of the agreement in a court of another Member State that had jurisdiction under Regulation 44/1001. A, the appellant insurers (RAS) appealed against a decision which granted an injunction restraining them from proceeding with an action that they had commenced against R, the respondent shipowner (West Tankers) in Italy. ...
|
| 1 2 |