Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Search Results for: Insolvency Act 1986 171
In Re Inside Sport Ltd: CACD 27 Nov 1998
Where a dispute arose as to the identity of a voluntary liquidator, the parties should resolve the dispute by an application to the court for the appointment of a voluntary liquidator. It was wrong to seek instead the compulsory winding up of the company. Citations: Times 27-Nov-1998 Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 171 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading In Re Inside Sport Ltd: CACD 27 Nov 1998
Jervis v Pillar Denton Ltd (Game Station) and Others: ChD 1 Jul 2013
Application for directions by the administrators of various companies in the Game Group of Companies, including Game Stores Group Limited, concerning the treatment of rent, service charge and insurance payments due under the terms of five leases. Lavender QC DHCJ [2013] EWHC 2171 (Ch) Bailii Insolvency Act 1986 England and Wales Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant … Continue reading Jervis v Pillar Denton Ltd (Game Station) and Others: ChD 1 Jul 2013
Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council: ChD 1987
Millett J said: ‘The ITC contend there is no jurisdiction to make such an order [an order for discovery of assets] in the absence of a Mareva injunction. It is, however, fallacious to reason from the fact that an order for discovery can be made as ancillary to a Mareva injunction to a conclusion that … Continue reading Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council: ChD 1987
Williams v Glover and Another: ChD 4 Jun 2013
The company’s liquidator had refused to assign to its former directors a claim for a reduction in corporation tax which they were funding. Held: Such a claim did not constitute property within section 436, and was not a chose capable of assignment. All that could be assigned would be the right to appeal. Since the … Continue reading Williams v Glover and Another: ChD 4 Jun 2013
Inland Revenue v Hashmi and Another: CA 3 May 2002
The question for the court was whether when there was more than one purpose of a transaction the proscribed purpose under the section had to be dominant or not.
Held: It was not necessary for the proscribed purpose to be the dominant purpose; . .
