Archive for the 'derivative claims' Category

Roberts v Gill & Co – WLR Daily

Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22; [2010] WLR (D) 130

“A beneficiary under a will who had commenced proceedings against solicitors he alleged had acted negligently in connection with the estate could not, after the relevant limitation period had expired, amend his claim so as to also claim on behalf of the estate by way of a derivative action.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Roberts v Gill & Co (a Firm) and Another – Times Law Reports

Roberts v Gill & Co (a Firm) and Another

Court of Appeal

“When the court gave permission for a personal claim, brought by a beneficiary of an estate in his personal capacity, to be continued as a derivative claim on behalf of the estate, the personal representative or administrator had to be joined as a party to those proceedings.”

The Times, 18th August 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Roberts v Gill & Co and another – WLR Daily

Roberts v Gill & Co and another [2008] EWCA Civ 803; [2008] WLR (D) 239

Where a beneficiary of an estate brought a derivative claim, the personal representative had to be joined as a party, since the situation was indistinguishable from that of a derivative action brought by a member of a company or corporate body, in which the company had to be joined as a defendant under CPR r 19.3.”

WLR Daily, 16th July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel and others – WLR Daily

Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel and others [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 220

Where the question of ratification arose in the context of an application to continue a derivative claim, under s 261 of the Companies Act 2006, the court should ask itself whether the ratification had the effect that the claimant was being improperly prevented from bringing the claim on behalf of the company. That also applied where the connected person provisions in s 239 were not satisfied but there was still actual wrongdoer control by which there had been a diversion of assets to persons associated with the wrongdoer, albeit not connected in the sense provided by s 239(4).”

WLR Daily, 3rd July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


March 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories