Re Kingston Cotton Mill Company (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1896 |
| Date | 1896 |
| 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
24 cases
-
Kennedy v Law Society of Ireland (No. 3)
... ... SI 218/1955 PARA 14(2) SOLICITORS ACT 1960 S31(6) KINGSTON COTTON MILL (NO 2) 1896 2 CH 279 SOLICITORS ACCOUNTS REGS (NO 2) ... , namely, that where an accountant is appointed as auditor of a company pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Acts 1963– 1990or engaged by ... ...
-
JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong (a firm)
... ... Corporation (“JSISC”), the ultimate holding company of the appellant ... 3 JSISC is ... prepayment accounts comprising transactions that had no substantiating documents, ... thereby breaching its ... and sensible observations of Lopes LJ in In re Kingston Cotton Mill Company (No. 2) [1896] 2 Ch 279 (“ Re ... ...
-
JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong (A Firm)
... ... [2006] SGHC 223 Lee Seiu Kin J Suit No 874 of 2004 High Court Auditors–Duties–Plaintiff-company suing auditor for failing to detect company director's ... Pen Co Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 45 (folld) Kingston Cotton Mill Company (No 2),In re [1896] 2 Ch 279 (folld) ... ...
- Re Johnson (B) & Company (Builders) Ltd
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
The Limits Of Audit: Public Perceptions And Legal Realities
...Rolls [2009] 1 AC 1291, p.19 4 [1989] QB 653 5 Galloo v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 WLR 1360 6 Re Kingston Cotton Mill Co (No 2) [1896] 1 Ch. 331 This article first appeared in Accountancy The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialis......
2 books & journal articles
-
An Appraisal of the Modification of the Director’s Duty of Care and Skill
...the common-law duty of care. See also Re Cardiff Savings Bank; Marquis ofBute’sCase [1892] 2 Ch 100; Re Kingston Cotton Mill Co (No 2) [1896] 1 Ch 331.131980 (4) SA 156 (W).14Michele Havenga ‘The Business Judgment Rule – Should We Follow the Australian Example’(2000) 12 SA Merc LJ 25 at 34.......
-
The Business Judgment Rule — Should We Follow the Australian Example?
...the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see eg Marquis of Bute's Case [1892] 2 Ch 100; In re Kingston Cotton Mill Co (No 2) [1896] 1 Ch 331; Lagunas Nitrate 25 (2000) 12 SA Merc LJ 25© Juta and Company (Pty) 26 (2000) 12 SA Merc LJ Co v Lagunas Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch 392; Prefont......