It was alleged that at the company’s annual genneral meeting the proposed defendant had assaulted the company’s chairman. The company prosecuted him. The magistrate dismissed the charge saying that the company had no standing to conduct such a prosecution, there being no public benefit in the company undertaking the prosecution.
Held: The company had a proper interest in the orderly conduct of its meetings, and could undertake the prosecution. Such actions must be exceptional, and the court would not want them to be used to stifle opposition to the management of the company.
Judges:
Rose, Leveson JJ
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2806 (Admin), Times 26-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1987, [2005] 2 All ER 56
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Cited – Rollins, Regina v CACD 9-Oct-2009
The court was asked whether the Financial Services Authority had itself the power to prosecute offences under the 2002 Act. The defence said that the FSA’s powers were limited to offences under the 2000 Act. The FSA relied on its common law power to . .
Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Company
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.220170