18. Remedies for maladministration

Author(s):  
Derek French

This chapter considers the remedies available when maladministration occurs, with emphasis on the existence of the company as a separate person. It examines circumstances where a wrong has been done to the company or to individual members, focusing on the proper claimant principle established in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, and the possible action that can be taken against company officers who have committed a wrong. It also explains the causes for which a member can file derivative claims; the right of a member to petition the court for relief under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), part 30 (ss 994 to 999); the concept of winding up; the irregularity principle; and when the Secretary of State can intervene in maladministration cases. The chapter cites relevant legislation (Companies Act 1985, Insolvency Act 1986 and CA 2006) and a number of particularly significant court cases.

2021 ◽  
pp. 539-604
Author(s):  
Derek French

This chapter considers the remedies available when maladministration occurs, with emphasis on the existence of the company as a separate person. It examines circumstances where a wrong has been done to the company or to individual members, focusing on the proper claimant principle established in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, and the possible action that can be taken against company officers who have committed a wrong. It also explains the causes for which a member can file derivative claims; the right of a member to petition the court for relief under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), part 30 (ss 994 to 999); members’ petition for winding up; the irregularity principle; and when the Secretary of State can intervene in maladministration cases. The chapter cites relevant legislation (Companies Act 1985, Insolvency Act 1986 and CA 2006) and a number of particularly significant court cases.


Author(s):  
Derek French ◽  
Stephen W. Mayson ◽  
Christopher L. Ryan

This chapter considers the remedies available when maladministration occurs, with emphasis on the existence of the company as a separate person. It examines circumstances where a wrong has been done to the company or to individual members, focusing on the proper claimant principle established in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, and the possible action that can be taken against company officers who have committed a wrong. It also explains the causes for which a member can file derivative claims; the right of a member to petition the court for relief under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), part 30 (ss 994 to 999); the concept of winding up; the irregularity principle; and when the Secretary of State can intervene in maladministration cases. The chapter cites relevant legislation (Companies Act 1985, Insolvency Act 1986, and CA 2006) and a number of particularly significant court cases.


Author(s):  
Derek French

This chapter considers the remedies available when maladministration occurs, with emphasis on the existence of the company as a separate person. It examines circumstances where a wrong has been done to the company or to individual members, focusing on the proper claimant principle established in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, and the possible action that can be taken against company officers who have committed a wrong. It also explains the causes for which a member can file derivative claims; the right of a member to petition the court for relief under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), part 30 (ss 994 to 999); the concept of winding up; the irregularity principle; and when the Secretary of State can intervene in maladministration cases. The chapter cites relevant legislation (Companies Act 1985, Insolvency Act 1986 and CA 2006) and a number of particularly significant court cases.


Author(s):  
Derek French

This chapter considers the remedies available when maladministration occurs, with emphasis on the existence of the company as a separate person. It examines circumstances where a wrong has been done to the company or to individual members, focusing on the proper claimant principle established in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, and the possible action that can be taken against company officers who have committed a wrong. It also explains the causes for which a member can file derivative claims; the right of a member to petition the court for relief under the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), part 30 (ss 994 to 999); members’ petition for winding up; the irregularity principle; and when the Secretary of State can intervene in maladministration cases. The chapter cites relevant legislation (Companies Act 1985, Insolvency Act 1986 and CA 2006) and a number of particularly significant court cases.


2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-46
Author(s):  
Bert Govaerts

In 1908 verwierf België de souvereiniteit over de voormalige Congo Vrijstaat, die particulier bezit van koning Leopold II was geweest. De nieuwe kolonie kreeg een soort grondwet, het Koloniale Charter. Artikel 3 daarvan bepaalde dat er in Belgisch-Congo taalvrijheid heerste, maar ook dat de Belgen er dezelfde taalrechten en -bescherming zouden genieten als in het moederland. Uiterlijk tegen 1913 moesten speciale decreten de taalregeling in rechtszaken en in de administratie vastleggen. Die afspraak werd niet gehonoreerd. De decreten kwamen er niet en de kolonie werd in de praktijk exclusief Franstalig. Een klein aantal Vlaamse koloniale ambtenaren verzette zich daar tegen en boekte ook beperkte successen, op plaatselijk niveau. Een doorbraak kwam er pas in de nadagen van de kolonie, toen een Vlaams magistraat, Jozef Grootaert, het recht opeiste om in het Nederlands te vonnissen. Pas na een lang en bitter gevecht, uitgevochten tot op regeringsniveau en mee gekleurd door allerlei persoonlijke motieven, werd uiteindelijk in 1956, meer dan veertig jaar later dan afgesproken, een decreet over het gebruik van de talen bij het koloniale gerecht goedgekeurd. Over een decreet i.v.m. bestuurzaken raakte men het niet meer eens voor de onafhankelijkheid van de kolonie in 1960. In het onafhankelijke Congo was er voor het Nederlands geen (officiële) plaats.________The Case of Judge Grootaert and the struggle for Dutch in the Belgian CongoIn 1908 Belgium acquired the sovereignty over the former Congo Free State, which had been the private property of king Leopold II. The new colony was granted a kind of constitution, the Colonial Charter. Article 3 of this charter provided not only that there would be freedom of language in the Belgian Congo, but also that the Belgians in that country would enjoy the same rights and protection of their language as they had in their motherland. The language regulation for court cases and the administration was to be laid down in special decrees by 1913 at the latest. That agreement was not honoured. The decrees failed to be drawn up and in practice the colony became exclusively French speaking. A small number of Flemish colonial officials resisted against this situation and in fact obtained some limited successes on a local level. A breakthrough finally occurred in the latter years of the colony, when a Flemish magistrate, Jozef Grootaert claimed the right to pronounce judgement in Dutch. Only after a long and bitter struggle that was fought out until the bitter end on a governmental level and that was also characterized by all kinds of personal motives, a decree about the use of languages at the colonial court was finally approved in 1956, more than forty years after it had been agreed. It proved to be no longer possible to reach agreement about a decree concerning administrative matters before the independence of the colony in 1960. In the independent Congo Republic no (official) role was reserved for Dutch.


Legal Studies ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satvinder S. Juss

The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of two recent decisions on an immigrant’s right of appeal: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Sonia Mahli was decided in the Court of Appeal in December 1989 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Oladehinde was decided by the House of Lords in October 1990. Both cases raised other substantive issues of considerable importance for public lawyers: Oldehinde made the important point that the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate to senior immigration officers his powers to make deportation decisions; Malhi demonstrated how limited are the natural justice rights of overstayers.


2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 396-426
Author(s):  
Mariya Riekkinen

A series of protests across Russia, triggered by procedural violations during the 2011 parliamentary elections and results of the 2012 presidential elections, culminated on 6 May 2012 with a demonstration at Bolotnaia Square in Moscow. That demonstration led to violent clashes between protesters and the police. The dispersal of this demonstration and the subsequent criminal and administrative trials conducted against some of the protesters, as well as the controversy regarding the severity of some of the penalties imposed by the courts, became known as the Bolotnoe Affair. The Bolotnoe Affair is analyzed from the perspective of implementing the right to freedom of assembly in Russia. The main goal is to conduct a contextual legal analysis clarifying whether the right to freedom of assembly is adequately implemented in the legal order of the Russian Federation, in order to illustrate whether the protesters in the Bolotnoe Affair were able to express their opinions with regard to the procedure and results of the elections. The leading court cases relevant to the participatory rights of the protesters as exemplified by the appellate decisions of the Moscow City Court will also be examined. In particular, twelve decisions of the Moscow City Court during the period 2012–2014 (full texts of which are reproduced in publicly available legal databases) are reviewed, as well as two recent judgments in European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases closely related to these earlier cases. Analyzing the Moscow City Court decisions vis-à-vis the judgments of the ECtHR, the author concludes that the Moscow City Court’s rulings did not conform with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) regarding the right to freedom of assembly and the right to liberty.


1895 ◽  
Vol 57 (340-346) ◽  
pp. 386-394

This memoir embodies the results of a series of investigations which were initiated by the Right Hon. Viscount Cross, sometime H. M. Secretary of State for India, shortly after the annexation of Burma by the British Government. The researches were undertaken with a view to the determination of the value of the celebrated ruby mines of that country, and of the conditions under which the gem is found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document