The company had published and filed its accounts, but sought to file revised accounts. The Registrar of companies refused permission, and the company asked the court to require the registrar to allow it by virtue of the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The accounts as filed disclosed the effect of a part 36 offer.
Held: The analogy with Rush and Tompkins did not hold. Calmex did not establish a general supervisory jurisdiction. If an action might lie, the registrar and any other party would have to be a joined in.
Judges:
Peter Leaver QC
Citations:
Times 02-Feb-2004
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another HL 1988
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the . .
Cited – In re Calmex Ltd 1989
The court could exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the registrar of companies, and enforce his duties through judicial review. The jurisdiction was not general, but one exercising normal public law jurisdiction. In particular, the court has . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193761
