Search for: "CH" Results 1241 - 1260 of 8,972
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Oct 2009, 1:40 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Guyett & Anor v R [2009] EWCA Crim 1943 (08 October 2009) Electric Gate Services Ltd, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 1942 (08 October 2009) High Court (Chancery Division) Courtman v Ludlam & Anor [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch) (06 August 2009) Source: www.bailii.org [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:20 am by sally
Bamford v Harvey and another [2012] EWHC 2858 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 298 “‘Wrongdoer control’ of a company was not an absolute preclusive condition for the bringing of a derivative claim. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 3:09 am by tracey
High Court (Chancery Division) Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Provident Life and Pensions Ltd [2011] EWHC 2302 (Ch) (14 September 2011) High Court (Commercial Court) A & Ors v B & Anor [2011] EWHC 2345 (Comm) (15 September 2011) Linsen International Ltd & Ors v Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm) (14 September 2011) Source: www.bailii.org [read post]
18 Oct 2022, 10:00 pm by John Jenkins
Ch.; 9/22), interpreting an asset purchase agreement’s assumption of liabilities language is worth […] [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 1:46 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc [2009] EWCA Civ 531 (10 June 2009) Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Yates [2009] EWCA Civ 479 (10 June 2009) High Court (Chancery Division) Penfold v Fuller [2009] EWHC 1195 (Ch) (18 May 2009) High Court (Technology and [...] [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 3:49 am by michael
Hoist UK Ltd v Reid Lifting Ltd; [2010] EWHC 1922 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 215 “CPR r 38.5(3) should be construed as meaning that discontinuance did not affect any proceedings to deal with any question of costs, whether or not such proceedings had already been commenced at the date of discontinuance. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 3:00 am by John Jenkins
Ch.; 4/24), Vice Chancellor Fioravanti rejected a plaintiff’s efforts to convey jurisdiction on the Chancery Court for a post-closing breach of contract claim arising out of a merger agreement. [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 3:00 am by John Jenkins
Ch.; 2/24), in which the Chancellor refused to dismiss claims alleged that the board violated various provisions of the DGCL by, among other things, approving a late-stage draft of the merger agreement instead of a final execution copy. [read post]
28 May 2009, 3:52 am
In Daimler AG v Sany Group Company Ltd [2009] EWHC 1003 (Ch) (14 May 2009) the registered proprietor of the following marks sought injunctions and other relief against Sany Group Co. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 3:41 pm
In the Hedgehog Golf Company Ltd v Hauser [2011] EWHC 689 (Ch) (23 March 2011), Mr. [read post]
17 Apr 2025, 2:00 am by Meredith Ervine
Ch.; 4/25), the Chancery Court dismissed a stockholder challenge to a company’s recently amended advance notice bylaws as unripe — confirming that Delaware courts must be presented with a genuine dispute before undertaking an equitable review of a company’s bylaws. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 1:37 am by sally
Jayasinghe v Liyanage [2010] EWHC 265 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 44 “The adjudicator to the Land Registry had jurisdiction to conduct a trial of the question of beneficial entitlement to property where an objection to an application was made to the registrar and the matter referred to the adjudicator under s 73(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002. [read post]
5 Jun 2025, 3:00 am by John Jenkins
Ch.; 6/25), is the latest example of that kind of case to make its way to the Chancery Court. [read post]
29 May 2025, 3:12 am
Vape Cloud ChasingAuthor VAPES  Licence CC BY-2.0  Source Wikimedia Commons Jane LambertChancery Division (Mr Justice Miles) Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) (21 May 2025)This was an application by Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd (Shenzhen) to restrain Bargain Busting Ltd ("BB") from threatening trade mark infringement [read post]
10 Jun 2025, 2:00 am by Meredith Ervine
Ch.; 5/25) in which Vice Chancellor David upheld a board’s rejection of dissidents’ nominees but allowed the dissidents to resubmit their nominations after concluding the board breached its fiduciary duties when it reduced the number of directors up for election. [read post]