|
Jetivia SA V Bilta (UK) Limited (in Liquidation)
(sometimes referred to as ''Bilta (UK) Limited v Nazir'') is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect. The Supreme Court held that: # the defence of ''ex turpi causa'' could not operate to prevent a claim brought by the liquidators on behalf of a company against its former directors on the basis that, where the company was essentially the victim of a fraud by the directors, the conduct of the directors would not be attributed to the company and thereby treat the company as a party to the illegality; and # liability for fraudulent trading under the Insolvency Act 1986 had extraterritorial effect. Facts Paragraphs 113 - 116 of the joint opinion of Lord Toulson and Lord H ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Supreme Court Of The United Kingdom
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (initialism: UKSC or the acronym: SCOTUK) is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom’s highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. The Court usually sits in the Middlesex Guildhall in Westminster, though it can sit elsewhere and has, for example, sat in the Edinburgh City Chambers, the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast, and the Tŷ Hywel Building in Cardiff. The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. However, as with any court in the UK, it can overturn secondary legislation if, for an examp ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
European Union Emission Trading Scheme
The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is a "cap and trade" scheme where a limit is placed on the right to emit specified pollutants over an area and companies can trade emission rights within that area. It covers around 45% of the EUs greenhouse gas emissions. Under the "cap and trade" principle, a maximum (cap) is set on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by all participating installations. EU Allowances for emissions are then auctioned off or allocated for free, and can subsequently be traded. Installations must monitor and report their emissions, ensuring they hand in enough allowances to the authorities to cover their emissions. If emission exceeds what is permitted by its allowances, an installation must purchase allowances from others. Conversely, if an installation has performed well at reducing its emissions, it can sell its leftover credits. This allows the system to find the most cost-effective ways of reducing emissions without si ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tinsley V Milligan
is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and Illegality in English law, illegality. The decision was criticised as "creating capricious results". It has now been overruled by . Facts Miss Tinsley sought possession of a house that was solely in her name. Her relationship with her partner, Miss Milligan, had come to an end. Miss Milligan had been living there and had contributed to the purchase price. It had been in Tinsley’s name alone when they bought it, as a way of claiming more in social security. Milligan later repented and confessed to the benefit fraud. Then Tinsley moved out and sought possession of the house, arguing she was solely entitled. Miss Milligan pleaded that it was the common intention that the property should belong to both of them (and so did not need to rely on the illegality). Judgment The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, House of Lords held that because Miss Milligan could invoke the presumptio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Moore Stephens V Stone Rolls Ltd (in Liq)
is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ''ex turpi causa non oritur actio''. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" (or the creditors standing in its insolvent shoes) could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords. The decision was subject to much criticism, and was reviewed by the Supreme Court in ''Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation)''. Facts Stone & Rolls Ltd was wholly o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Committee Of The House Of Lords
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, it for many centuries had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England. Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the King-in-Parliament. In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (informally referred to as Law Lords). They were then appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the same manner as other judges. During the 20th and early 21st century, the judicial functions were gradually removed. Its final trial of a peer was in 1935, and in 1948, the use of special courts for such trials was abolished. The procedure of impeachment became seen as obsolete. In 2009, t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Companies Act 2006
The Companies Act 2006 (c 46) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which forms the primary source of UK company law. The Act was brought into force in stages, with the final provision being commenced on 1 October 2009. It largely superseded the Companies Act 1985. The Act provides a comprehensive code of company law for the United Kingdom, and made changes to almost every facet of the law in relation to companies. The key provisions are: * the Act codifies certain existing common law principles, such as those relating to directors' duties. * it transposes into UK law the Takeover Directive and the Transparency Directive of the European Union * it introduces various new provisions for private and public companies. * it applies a single company law regime across the United Kingdom, replacing the two separate (if identical) systems for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. * it otherwise amends or restates almost all of the Companies Act 1985 to varying degrees. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
' (Latin "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ' is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in ''Patel v Mirza''. 016UKSC 42 Illegality in English Law Development In the early case of ''Holman v Johnson'' Lord Mansfield CJ set out the rationale for the illegality doctrine. Tort In the law of tort, the principle would prevent a criminal from bringing a claim against (for example) a fellow criminal. In '' National Coal Board v England'', Lord Asquith said, In ' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Legal Maxim
A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition of law, and a species of aphorism and general maxim. The word is apparently a variant of the Latin , but this latter word is not found in extant texts of Roman law with any denotation exactly analogous to that of a legal maxim in the Medieval or modern definition, but the treatises of many of the Roman jurists on and are to some degree collections of maxims. Most of the Latin maxims originate from the Medieval era in European states that used Latin as their legal language. The attitude of early English commentators towards the maximal of the law was one of unmingled adulation. In Thomas Hobbes, ''Doctor and Student'' (p. 26), they are described as of the same strength and effect in the law as statutes. Not only, observes Francis Bacon in the preface to his collection of maxims: The use of maxims will be "in deciding doubt and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in correcting unprofitable ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Motion To Dismiss
In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge (or judges) to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the ''moving party'', or may simply be the ''movant''. The party opposing the motion is the ''nonmoving party'' or ''nonmovant''. Process In the United States, as a general rule, courts do not have self-executing powers. In other words, in order for the court to rule on a contested issue in a case before it, one of the parties or a third party must raise an appropriate motion asking for a particular order. Some motions may be made in the form of an oral request in open court, which is then either summarily granted or denied orally by the court. This is still common with motions m ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Liquidation
Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and many other countries. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry. Liquidation may either be compulsory (sometimes referred to as a ''creditors' liquidation'' or ''receivership'' following bankruptcy, which may result in the court creating a "liquidation trust") or voluntary (sometimes referred to as a ''shareholders' liquidation'', although some voluntary liquidations are controlled by the creditors). The ter ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Provisional Liquidation
Provisional liquidation is a process which exists as part of the corporate insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions whereby after the lodging of a petition for the winding-up of a company by the court, but before the court hears and determines the petition, the court may appoint a liquidator on a "provisional" basis. (The provisional liquidator is appointed to safeguard the assets of the company and maintain the ''status quo'' pending the hearing of the petition.) Unlike a conventional liquidator, a provisional liquidator does not assess claims against the company or try to distribute the company's assets to creditors, as the power to realise the assets comes after the court orders a liquidation. In practice most instances of applications for a provisional liquidator involve some type of allegation of fraud or other misconduct relating to the company. Application Typically, an application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator is made by either: # a cre ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Missing Trader Fraud
Missing trader fraud (also called missing trader intra-community fraud or MTIC fraud) involves the theft of Value Added Tax (VAT) from a government by fraudsters who exploit VAT rules, most commonly the European Union VAT rules which provide that the movement of goods between member states is VAT-free. There are different variations of the fraud but they generally involve a trader charging VAT on the sale of goods and absconding with the VAT (instead of paying the VAT to the government's taxation authority). The term "missing trader" is used because the fraudster has gone missing with the VAT. A common form of missing trader fraud is carousel fraud. In carousel fraud, VAT and goods are passed around between companies and jurisdictions, similar to how a carousel revolves. VAT rules The usual operation of VAT is as follows: a business that buys and sells goods charges VAT to those to whom it sells ('output tax'), and is charged VAT by those from whom it purchases ('input tax' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
