Regal hastings ltd v gulliver 1967 2 ac 134n
WebWeek 5 1. Regal Hastings Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134 Facts:-Regal’s directors decided to restructure co and sell it (cinema) business as a going concern-Company ran out of funds to complete project; to provide extra capital, 4 of directors subscribed for shares in exchange for equity finance which allowed for completion of restructure project.-Upon sale of the co … WebRegal (Hastings) Ltd v. Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134n; Boardman v. Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 This page was last edited on 10 April 2024, at 09:52 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative …
Regal hastings ltd v gulliver 1967 2 ac 134n
Did you know?
WebRegal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking corporate opportunities in … Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company. The Court held that a director is in breach of his duties if he takes advantage … See more Regal owned a cinema in Hastings. They took out leases on two more, through a new subsidiary, to make the whole lot an attractive sale package. However, the landlord first wanted them to give personal guarantees. They … See more The House of Lords, reversing the High Court and the Court of Appeal, held that the defendants had made their profits “by reason of the fact … See more • Guth v. Loft, the Delaware decision that deviated from the strict approach. • Keech v Sandford, the rule of equity that has been the bedrock of fiduciary duties for 280 years. • Ex parte James (1803) 32 ER 385 See more Curiously, even though it was a House of Lords decision, and is now regarded as one of the seminal cases on directors' duties, the decision … See more • Full text of decision from BAILII.org See more
WebFeb 24, 2015 · Following the decision in Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134 whether or not the company tends to use the corporate opportunity is irrelevant. Breach of Duty – Penalties. If a Court is satisfied that a person has contravened a civil penalty provision, it may make a declaration of contravention. WebJun 30, 2024 · The action was brought by Regal against the first five respondents who were former directors of Regal, to recover from them sums of money amounting to £7,018 8s. …
WebRegal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a … Web6 Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134n; [1942] 1 All ER 378, HL. 7 Cook v Deeks [1916] 1 AC 554, PC (misusing corporate property/assets by diverting a lucrative contract …
WebRegal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a … painting of crazy horseWebOct 6, 2024 · 83 The typical examples are the “hand in the till” cases, such as Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 A.C. 102 (H.L.); the self-dealing cases such as Aberdeen Rwy Co. v … painting of churchill by sutherlandWebBoardman v. Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46. LordCohen.:.. ... Applying [the] principles [of Regal (Hastings) Ltd v. Gulliver] to the present case I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellants hold the Lester & Harris shares as constructive trustees and are bound to account to the respondent. painting of custer\u0027s last standWebMar 7, 2024 · Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver 1942 UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking corporate opportunities … painting of christ the kingWebThe Regal directors requested Garton to take up 500. I will deal later with particular evidence applying to Gulliver and Garton, who delivered separate defences. Thus the capital of … succession wines chelanWebStudy with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like No profit rule, Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 135, Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 and more. succession winsWebApr 16, 2024 · Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver; Court: House of Lords: Decided: 20 February 1942: Citation(s) [1942] 1 All ER 378, [1967] 2 AC 134, [1942] UKHL 1: Transcript(s) Full … succession witch guide