Smith v Charles Building Services Ltd and Another: CA 19 Jan 2006

An application was made for the rectfication of the company’s registers.
Held: The claimant’s name had been improperly removed from the register, and therefore he was prima facie entitled to a rectification. However even if rectified, the beneficial ownership of any share would remain unresolved. The appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Arden LJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 359

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRe Sussex Brick Co Ltd 1904
The court should not generally order rectification of a company’s registers where this would prejudice third party rights. Vaughan Williams LJ said: ‘I do not mean for a moment to suggest that any one is entitled to such an order ex debito . .
Appeal fromSmith v Charles Building Services Ltd and Another ChD 22-Apr-2005
The claimant said that his name had been removed from the company register unlawfully. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.237740