Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Pender v Lushington

Cited in 103 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1876
Date1876
Year1876
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
78 cases
  • Re Dee Valley Group Plc
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 8 February 2017
    ...sui generis. It is not to be equated with a company's general meeting. Accordingly, the well-known line of authorities beginning with Pender v. Lushington (1877) 6 Ch. D. 70 at 75–6 and Allen v. Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd [1900] 1 Ch. 656 are inapplicable to court meetings, when they spe......
  • Si-Hoe Kok Chun and Another v Ramesh Ramchandani
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 January 2006
    ...Phillips (1883) 23 Ch D 14 (folld) Jimat bin Awang v Lai Wee Ngen [1995] 3 SLR (R) 496; [1995] 3 SLR 769 (folld) Pender v Lushington (1877) 6 Ch D 70 (distd) Petrie Christopher Harrison v Jones Alan [2005] 2 SLR (R) 387; [2005] 2 SLR 387 (distd) Robin Lane (Strata Titles Board No 281), Re [......
  • Lim Hean Pin v Thean Seng Company Sdn Bhd and Others
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1992
  • Cheah Theam Swee and Another v Overseas Union Bank Ltd and Others
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1989
    • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Bibliografie
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Transactions of the Centre for Business Law No. 2004-36, January 2004
    • 1 January 2004
    ...Developments (Guildford) Ltd v Fidelis FurnishingFabrics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 711 (CA)Pavlides v Jensen [1956] Ch 565Pender v Lushington (1877) 6 ChD 70Posgate & Denby (Agencies) Ltd, Re (1986) 2 BCC 99,352Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries (No 1) [1981]Ch 229, (No 2) [1981] Ch 257;......
  • A comparative analysis of derivative action in Cypriot company law: Comparison with English company law and the prospect of statutory reform
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law No. 29-1, February 2022
    • 1 February 2022
    ...to ratif‌iability.56. (2008) 1 CLR 1117 and so on.57. K.W. Wedderburn, 15 Cambridge Law Journal (1957), p. 208.58. Pender v. Lushington (1877) 6 Ch D 70, per Jessel MR. Note that the f‌irst two exceptions concern the internal manage-ment of the company.70 Maastricht Journal of European and ......
  • DIRECT SUITS AND DERIVATIVE ACTIONS: RETHINKING SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION IN COMPARATIVE CORPORATE LAW.
    • United States
    • Washington University Global Studies Law Review Vol. 21 No. 3, September 2022
    • 22 September 2022
    ...(190) For a list of such rights, see AUSTIN & RAMSAY, supra note 181, at [10.233]. (191) See, e.g., Pender v. Lushington (1877) 6 Ch. D 70 (Eng. Ch.) (shareholders succeeded in obtaining injunctive relief restraining the company from putting into effect shareholder resolutions that were......
  • Minority Shareholders’ Rights and the Majority Rule under Corporate Governance: An Appraisal
    • South Africa
    • Juta Journal of Comparative Law in Africa No. , August 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...that the applicant is acting in good faith;and that it appears to be in the best interest of the company.3733Pender v Lushington (1877) 6 Ch D 70.34Section 41 CAMA.35See s 301(2) & (3) CAMA.36Previously, a derivative claim only existed under common law but not understatute. Adequate provisi......
    • Request a trial to view additional 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