Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] 2 BCLC 427
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:12:45 UTC
-
Jurisdiciton of courts under s.994 and IA 1986 s.122(1)(g) are ‘parallel’.
However is possible to have cases in which there is no unfair prejudice but winding-up is justified, and vice-versa
If Parliament had intended jurisdictions of two sections to be coterminous, would not have used different language in both sections
Re Guidezone should not be followed
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Factortame 2 R v Secretary of State for Transport ex. p. Factortame (No.2)
The process of reviewing national laws for compatibility with Community provisions involves preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice and the direct authority of national courts. This allows nation...
Davidoff & Cie SA and Zino Davidoff SA v Gofkid Ltd
Question was referred to ECJ whether section 5(2) also applied where the good in respect of which earlier and later mark are registered are not similar or identical (despite the wording in Trade Mar...
Litster v Forth Dry Dock
This related to an unfair dismissal claim and some regulations enacted by parliament specifically to make the laws comply with an EC regulation. Therefore the courts were to use purposive reasoning s...
Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer etc
This case concerned an inadequately implemented working time directive (the implementing legislation contained improper exceptions). Confirmed that legislation post-dating (as well as legislation pre...
Racal
DPP made an application to investigate a company’s record on the grounds that it had sent fraudulent messages to customers. The high court judge said that since the section only applied to the intern...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.