Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others [2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch)
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:12:49 UTC
Under s.263(2), court can only refuse leave for derivative action where satisfied that no director would seek to pursue the claim themselves.
Thus if some directors would seek to continue action, court cannot automatically refuse leave.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel
Relevant test under s. 263(3)(b) is that of a hypothetical director. i.e. if such a person would not attach very much importance to pursuing claim, no leave granted. Factors which hypothetical direct...
Smith v Henniker-Major & Co
Claimant was a director of company. Believed that two other directors had breached their duties by unlawfully diverting business from company towards themselves. Company had right of action against t...
Towcester Racecourse v Racecourse Association
Claimant argued that it was implied term of articles of association that any inquiry into a member would be proper, efficacious and open to its members; and that therefore directors could be directly...
AG Belize v Belize Telecom
Articles provided that certain special shares gave their holders a right to appoint two directors of the company. Claimant purchased some of these voting shares, but fell into financial trouble and l...
GamlestadenFatigheter AB v Baltic Partners
Claimant, a company, was a shareholder in Defendant but also a creditors of Defendant. Claimant sued Defendant’s directors under Jersey version of section 994, alleging unfair prejudice caused by mis...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.