The court considered the ability of a de facto director to rely on the 1939 Act as a defence to an action by the company to recover ‘trust property’.
Held: The defence failed. The court considered the circumstances in which fiduciary duties might arise, and said that the de facto directors exercised command and control over the company’s property and were consequently trustees for the purposes of the Limitation Act.
Judges:
Roxburgh J
Citations:
(1947) 111 LT 412
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Limitation
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.230274
