Finance and Markets in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Cambridge Gas Transport Corporation v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings Plc and Others
    • Privy Council
    • 16 Mayo 2006

    This doctrine may owe something to the fact that 18 th and 19 th century Britain was an imperial power, trading and financing development all over the world. It was often the case that the principal creditors were in Britain but many of the debtor's assets were in foreign jurisdictions. Universality of bankruptcy protected the position of British creditors. But universality of bankruptcy has long been an aspiration, if not always fully achieved, of United Kingdom law.

  • MacNiven v Westmoreland Investments Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Febrero 2001

  • Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
    • House of Lords
    • 20 Febrero 1942

    The rule of equity which insists on those who by use of a fiduciary position make a profit, being liable to account for that profit, in no way depends on fraud, or absence of bona fides; or upon such questions or considerations as whether the profit would or should otherwise have gone to the Plaintiff, or whether the profiteer was under a duty to obtain the source of the profit for the Plaintiff, or whether he took a risk, or acted as he did for the benefit of the Plaintiff, or whether the Plaintiff has in fact been damaged or benefited by his action.

  • Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd; Re Westbourne Galleries Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 03 Mayo 1972

  • Stone and Rolls Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Moore Stephens (A Firm)
    • House of Lords
    • 30 Julio 2009

    Though not essential to my reasoning, I also consider that the principle established in In re Hampshire Land Company, Belmont Finance and Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1982) points towards the same result It prevents a company being treated as party to a fraud committed by its officers "on" or "against" the company, at least in the context of claims by the company for redress for offences committed against the company: Belmont Finance, 261D-H, per Buckley LJ, and 271F-G, per Goff LJ, and Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1982), p.640A-B, per Kerr LJ; and see Edwards Karwacki Smith & Co. Pty. Ltd. v Jacka Nominees Pty. Ltd. (1994) 15 ACSR 502, 515-517.

  • Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ((in Administration))
    • Chancery Division
    • 14 Marzo 2014

    There are, as I see it, a number of serious difficulties with this submission. First, on a natural reading of 2.88(7) it applies to a surplus in the hands of the administrator rather than in the hands of a subsequent liquidator. Read in its context, it seems to direct the administrator as to the application of the surplus which he holds.

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