Smith v Croft
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Date | 1986 |
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
46 cases
-
Gayle (Maxwell) and Others v Desnoes and Geddes Ltd and Others
...make a Wallersteiner order in a pension fund case should, in my view, be exercised with considerable care. The judgment of Walton J. in Smith v. Croft [1986] 2 All E.R. 551....contains a useful reminder of the dangers of too easily making orders which allow minority shareholders to litigat......
-
Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel and Others
...the basis that it could not show that an interim order was genuinely needed in accordance with the principles considered by Walton J. in Smith v. Croft [1986] 1WLR 580. 5 Before expressing my conclusions on the application for permission to continue the derivative claim I should say a littl......
- Re British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (No 2)
-
Certain Ltd Partners in Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LLP (A Firm) v Henderson PFI Secondary Fund II LP (A Firm)and Others
...of costs out of the fund up to a later point in the proceedings, such as disclosure, whereupon the position could be re-evaluated. 74 In Smith v Croft [1986] 1 WLR 580 at 597, Walton J expressed the need to hold the balance as fairly as possible between claimants and defendants in a minorit......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Table of Cases
...Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 114, [1986] PCC 204, [1986] BCLC 26, ChD 13 Coulson Sanderson & Ward Ltd v Ward (1986) 2 BCC 99, (1985) Financial Times , 18 October, CA 69 Debtor (No 544/SD/98), Re; sub nom Garrow v Society of Lloyd’s [2000] 1 BCLC 103, [2000] CLC 241,......
-
Costs orders, obstacles and barriers to the derivative action under section 165 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Part 1)
...withthe essential nature of the derivative action. The plaintiff shareholder65Supra note 62 at 403–4.66Idem at 392.67Idem at 391–2.68[1986] 2 All ER 551.DERIVATIVE ACTION 17© Juta and Company (Pty) litigates not for himself, but on behalf of and for the direct benefit of thecompany. Not ev......