Click the case name for better results:

In The Matter Of The British Sugar Refining Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856: 18 Feb 1857

The 25th section of the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856 (19 and 20 Vict, c. 47), enabling a shareholder whose name is without sufficient cause omitted to be entered in the company’s register to apply by motion for an order that the register may be rectified was not meant to give to every shareholder ex … Continue reading In The Matter Of The British Sugar Refining Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856: 18 Feb 1857

Royal British Bank v Turquand: CEC 1856

The plaintiff sought payment from the defendants, a joint stock Company, on a bond, signed by two directors, under the seal of the Company whereby the Company acknowledged themselves to be bound to the plaintiff in pounds 2,000. The company said . .

In The Matter Of The British Sugar Refining Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856; 18 Feb 1857

References: [1857] EngR 280, (1857) 3 K & J 408, (1857) 69 ER 1168 Links: Commonlii The 25th section of the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict, c. 47), enabling a shareholder whose name is without sufficient cause omitted to be entered in the company’s register to apply by motion for an … Continue reading In The Matter Of The British Sugar Refining Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856; 18 Feb 1857

The Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company v Hawkins: CEC 2 Dec 1858

The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 sued in respect of a libel imputing to it insolvency, mismanagement and dishonest carrying on of its affairs. Held: The action was maintainable. Pollock CB said: ‘That a corporation at common law can sue in respect of a libel there is no doubt. … Continue reading The Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company v Hawkins: CEC 2 Dec 1858

Morris v Kanssen: HL 1946

The House considered the effect of provisions relating to the acts of directors in the 1929 Act. Lord Simonds said: ‘There is, as it appears to me, a vital distinction between (a) an appointment in which there is a defect or, in other words, a defective appointment, and (b) no appointment at all. In the … Continue reading Morris v Kanssen: HL 1946

Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: HL 18 Feb 1993

Local Council may not Sue in Defamation Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which supported the decision to lay down the … Continue reading Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: HL 18 Feb 1993

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007

In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. In OBG, the defendants acted as receivers under an invalid charge, and were accused of unlawful interference … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007