Re F.L.E. Holdings Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1967 |
| Date | 1967 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
11 cases
-
Lin Securities Pte ((in Liquidation)) and Others v Royal Trust Bank (Asia) Ltd
...the latter's debts. There was thus no intention on its part to prefer RTB over the other creditors: at [32]. FLE Holdings Ltd, In re [1967] 1 WLR 1409 (folld) F P and C H Matthews Ltd (in liquidation),In re [1982] Ch 257 (distd) Ho Mun-Tuke Don v Oslo Finans AS [1990] 1 SLR (R) 326; [1990] ......
-
CCS 3542 1998
...dominant intention was (e.g. Peat v. Gresham Trust Ltd [1934] AC 252, Re Cutts (a bankrupt) [1956] 1 WLR 728 and Re FLE Holdings [1967] 1 WLR 1409). Rental income 20. The absent parent (or the absent parent and his new partner jointly: see below) received £400 per month from the letting of ......
-
AC CCS 1050 2009
...dominant intention was (e.g. Peat v. Gresham Trust Ltd [1934] AC 252, Re Cutts (a bankrupt) [1956] 1 WLR 728 and Re FLE Holdings [1967] 1 WLR 1409).” At the rehearing, the tribunal applied the “dominant purpose” test and found that the absent parent had not deprived himself of income. Howev......
-
Cooper and Another NNO v Merchant Trade Finance Ltd
...to take all the circumstances into account, and consider what is the correct inference to draw.' The dictum in In re F L E Holdings Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 1409 (Ch) at 1420 ([1967] 3 All ER 553 at 559D) 7. In order to determine whether the debtor had the requisite I intention it is necessary to e......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Challenging pre-bankruptcy dispositions: An Australian-South African comparison
...v Thomas (1834) 6 C&P 622; Ex parte Halliday: In re Liebert (1873) 8 Ch App 283; Smith v Pilgrim (1876) 2 ChD 127; Re FLE Holdings Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 1409. In the last case it was indicated that where the company mistakenly believed it had to pay because of the pressure, its intention was not......