The legislation relating to the assessment of compensation payable to former shareholders of Northern Rock plc following nationalisation was not unfair or incompatible with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 art.1. Allegations of regulatory failure did not change the position because the primary fault for the insolvency lay with Northern Rock’s management. If there was a regulatory failure it was not in any duty owed to the shareholders. T ...
|
Where the provision under Regulation 1346/2000 art.33(1) relating to secondary proceedings would not be adequate because the joint administrators in the main proceedings required the companies in administration to continue trading, it was highly desirable that the assistance of the courts of other Members States should be sought with a view to enabling the administrators to be heard prior to the opening of any secondary insolvency proceedings in those jurisdictions.
|
The effect of the Sch.B1 para.43(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not that proceedings brought against a company in administration without consent or permission of the court were a nullity, but only that they were liable to be stayed. Thus when considering a claim made without consent of the administrators against a company in administration, the correct course for an employment tribunal to take was to accept the claim but stay proceedings pending the issue of consent.
|
Note of Objections:- On 11 February 2008 the court dismissed the petition after the petitioner lodged a Minute of Abandonment. On the opposed motion of the respondents the court found the petitioner liable to the respondents in the expenses of process:- (1) on a party and party basis up to 7 October 2007; and (2) on an agent and client, client paying basis from 7 October 2007onwards. This was a hearing on a Note of Objections in relation to the report by the Auditor of Court on the taxation of t ...
|
This is a case in which the appellants, Mr and Mrs Jain, had their nursing home business destroyed by executive action taken against them by a regulatory authority, The Nottingham Health Authority. The Authority’s statutory successors, Trent Strategic Health Authority are the respondents to this appeal. The executive action taken by the Authority consisted of an expedited application made under s.30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, said application being made ex parte and without ...
|
In the absence of any suggestion that administrators were acting improperly, it would be contrary to the nature and purpose of an administration if the court were to interfere in the detailed day to day management of the administration by requiring the administrators to devote more time than they already had to answering questions put to them by a particular group of creditors.
|
The state oil company of Nigeria (A), appealed against a decision permitting partial enforcement of a New York Convention arbitration award. In accordance with the provisions of its contract, R had referred to arbitrators in Lagos in accordance with Nigerian law its claims to be paid substantially more than the contract price for its design and construction of a petroleum export terminal. The arbitrators had issued an award in favour of C in a net amount of US$152,200. A applied to the Federal ...
|
Insolvency: The joint liquidators of a company applied for an order under s.176A(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 that s.176A(2) of the Act should not apply so as to require a distribution of the prescribed part of the company’s net property to some unsecured creditors where the cost of processing the claims would exceed the value of the sums claimed. Held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction under s. 176A(5) of the Act to make an order that s.176A(2) of the Act disapply in part so as to r ...
|
Debate:- In this action the pursuers claim £909,395 from the defenders by way of Additional Consideration under an Asset Purchase Agreement entered in to on 9 June 2005. There is a separate claim by the defenders under the Services Agreement in which they are the pursuers. On 15 February 2008 at debate at the instance of both parties Lord Drummond Young repelled the defenders' pleas-in-law, sustained the pursuers' first and third pleas-in-law and granted decree against the defenders for pay ...
|
Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd (A) appealed against a decision that James Cobbe (R) a property developer, had established proprietary estoppel against it and was therefore entitled to a lien over a property to secure his interest. R had expended time and money in obtaining planning permission pursuant to an oral agreement in principle for the sale of land from A to R, the terms of which had not all been agreed. The CA regarded the finding that A’s behaviour in repudiating and seeking an improvement ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |