The applicant trustee applied under s.339 Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of a transfer of the beneficial interest in a house to the respondent. Held that although a joint tenancy that was severed fell within s.339 as a transaction at undervalue, just required that no order be made, as the purpose of the severance was to give effect to the parties’ intentions.
|
There was a close analogy between the court’s powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s.367(3)(b) to wind up a company on the just and equitable ground and the court’s well established jurisdiction to make winding-up orders on the petition of the secretary of state under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.124A.
|
Limitation. The Claimant sought to amend his particulars of claim outside of the limitation period. Whilst the new allegations were linked to the same facts, on analysis the newly alleged breaches of duty, the basis upon which financial loss was alleged to have been suffered and the scope of the alleged retainer had all fundamentally changed leading to a wider inquiry into the factual issues of the case. The conditions of s. 35 (5) of the Limitation Act 1980 were not satisfied.
|
The respondent Official Receiver issued an application against the appellant seeking a bankruptcy restriction order pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s. 281A imposing a restriction on him acting as a company director under the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 s.11. Held that where an undischarged bankrupt had remained a director of a company of which he was a sole shareholder, and had failed to distinguish between the company’s money and his own, the making of a bankruptcy restrictio ...
|
Proceedings in which relief was sought under the Insolvency Act 1986 s. 423 in respect of transactions defrauding creditors could continue without leave of the court where the party against whom relief was claimed was adjudged bankrupt after the commencement of proceedings.
|
In this case, which involved a drink/drive allegation, Magistrates who had retired to consider their verdict could hear additional evidence from the prosecution on a point first raised by defence counsel in her closing speech. The DC stated that the defence had to make the real issues clear at the latest before the prosecution closed it’s case. To raise points for the first time in closing was an ambush.
|
Once D had raised the issue of adequacy of consideration (s.329(c) POCA 2002), the prosecution had to prove either there was no consideration, or that the consideration was not adequate.
|
Jurisdiction. An injunction preventing the Claimant from deposing certain witnesses for the purposes of New York proceedings involving one of the Defendant’s group of companies would be continued as the New York proceedings were based on the same dispute as the pending English proceedings and the depositions would be disruptive of the English proceedings and be forensically and procedurally unfair to the Defendant.
|
The managing director of a firm of insurance brokers was contractually prohibited from competing with the company for 12 months after the termination of his employment. In the circumstances this was not an unreasonable restraint of trade as it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer’s interests in its confidential information.
|
Where a property had been let with a mixed residential and business use with the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 it was not possible for tenant to gain the benefit of the protection of the Rent Act 1977 through unilaterally ceasing the business use at the property.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |