Cases to reference Flashcards
Which case established the three key characteristics of a floating charge?
Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd
Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd
Which case established the three key characteristics of a floating charge?
Which case stated that the charge instrument’s classification of a charge is relevant?
Agnew v Inland Revenue Commissioner
Agnew v Inland Revenue Commissioner
Which case stated that the charge instrument’s classification of a charge is relevant?
Which case stated that the charge instrument’s classification of a charge is not conclusive?
Street v Mountford
Street v Mountford
Which case stated that the charge instrument’s classification of a charge is not conclusive?
Which case established that a court may conclude that a charge described as fixed may be categorised as fixed?
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
Which case established that a court may conclude that a charge described as fixed may be categorised as fixed?
Which case established that COI is still present even if company cannot take advantage or property, information or opportunity in question?
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
Which case established that COI is still present even if company cannot take advantage or property, information or opportunity in question?
Which case shows that S.172 is a subjective duty?
Regentcrest Plc v Cohen
Regentcrest Plc v Cohen
Which case shows that S.172 is a subjective duty?
Which case shows that a total failure to engage in managerial duties is not permissible and constitutes breach of S.174 duty?
Dorchester Finance Co v Stebbing
Dorchester Finance Co v Stebbing
Which case shows that a total failure to engage in managerial duties is not permissible and constitutes breach of S.174 duty?
Which case demonstrates that the corporate opportunity doctrine will be applied very strictly, and therefore that S.175 is still breached if opportunity no longer available to company?
Bhullar v Bhullar
Bhullar v Bhullar
Which case demonstrates that the corporate opportunity doctrine will be applied very strictly, and therefore that S.175 is still breached if opportunity no longer available to company?
Weighted voting rights for removal of director
Bushell v Faith
Bushell v Faith
Weighted voting rights for removal of director
2 cases re. share expropriation provisions
Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co - where such a provision is overly wide, it is likely to be deemed to be invalid
Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese & Co Ltd - where a provision is more limited in scope, it may be deemed valid - provision empowered Board to purchase shares of any shareholder who competed with the company
Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co
where a share expropriation provision is overly wide, it is likely to be deemed to be invalid
Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese & Co Ltd
where a share expropriation provision is more limited in scope, it may be deemed valid - provision empowered Board to purchase shares of any shareholder who competed with the company
3 reasons for significance of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
- Validly incorporated company can be used to shield its members
- ‘One-person’ companies are valid
- Relationship of agency or trusteeship not established simply through holding shares
Petrodel Resources Ltd v Prest
Where ‘a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control’
