Company Finance in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Mea Corporation Ltd, Re; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Aviss
    • Chancery Division
    • 20 Jul 2006

    Now that Morritt LJ has explained that the role of a shadow director does not necessarily extend over the whole range of the company's activities, it seems to me that there is no conceptual difficulty in concluding that a person can be both a shadow director and a de facto director simultaneously.

  • Bradbury v English Sewing Cotton Company Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Jun 1923

    Their taxation would seem to be logical, but it would be destructive of joint stock company enterprise, so the Act of 1842 has, apparently, proceeded on the idea that for revenue purposes a joint stock company should be treated as a large partnership, so that the payment of income tax by a company would discharge the quasi-partners. The reason for their discharge may be the avoidance of double taxation, or to speak accurately, the avoidance of increased taxation.

  • Kevin Hellard and Another v Horacio Luis De Brito Carvalho
    • Chancery Division
    • 25 Set 2013

    It is clear that established, definite insolvency before the transaction or dealing in question is not a pre-requisite for a duty to consider the interests of creditors to arise. If, on the other hand, a company is going to be able to pay its creditors in any event, ex hypothesi there need be no such constraint on the directors.

  • Re Horsley & Weight Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 Jul 1980

    If the company could not afford to pay out £10,000 and was doubtfully solvent so that the expenditure threatened the continued existence of the company, the directors ought to have known the facts and ought at any rate to have postponed the grant of the pension until the financial position of the company was assured.

  • Colin Thomas Burke (Liquidator of Idessa (UK) Ltd) and Another v John Morrison and Another
    • Chancery Division
    • 31 Mar 2011

    I am satisfied that whether it is to be viewed strictly as a shifting of the evidential burden or simply an example of the well-settled principle that a fiduciary is obliged to account for his dealings with the trust estate that Mr Aslett is correct to say that once the liquidator proves the relevant payment has been made the evidential burden is on the Respondents to explain the transactions in question.

  • Phillip Roberts (as Liquidator of Onslow Ditchling Ltd) v Peter Frohlich and Another
    • Chancery Division
    • 18 Feb 2011

    In my judgment each ought to have concluded at or about 1 September 2004 (certainly by ( say) 14 September 2004) that there was no realistic prospect of avoiding an insolvent liquidation.

  • Re British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (No 2)
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Oct 1992

    The proper case is one where the administrator reasonably requires to see the documents to carry out his functions and the production does not impose an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the person required to produce them in the light of the administrator's requirements.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT