*/
Practice – Civil litigation. The shareholders of three companies (the companies) brought three unfair prejudice petitions against the respondents, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006. The petitioners applied for final relief on their petitions on the basis that the respondents had failed to comply with an order requiring them to answer the request for information. The respondents applied for relief against sanctions under CPR Part 3.9. The Companies Court held that, subject to considering the relief from sanctions application and consequent on the failure to comply with an order of the court, the amended points of defence stood struck out. There had been no, or no sufficient, explanation of the reasons for the delay and considerations, which bore on the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the importance of compliance with court orders, pointed in only one direction: refusal of the application for relief in relation to the present matter.
Practice – Civil litigation. The shareholders of three companies (the companies) brought three unfair prejudice petitions against the respondents, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006. The petitioners applied for final relief on their petitions on the basis that the respondents had failed to comply with an order requiring them to answer the request for information. The respondents applied for relief against sanctions under CPR Part 3.9. The Companies Court held that, subject to considering the relief from sanctions application and consequent on the failure to comply with an order of the court, the amended points of defence stood struck out. There had been no, or no sufficient, explanation of the reasons for the delay and considerations, which bore on the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the importance of compliance with court orders, pointed in only one direction: refusal of the application for relief in relation to the present matter.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
On the 50th anniversary of the pub bombings, even now it is still unresolved. Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP who led the campaign leading to the release of the Birmingham Six, looks back at events
Adele Akers’ reflections on health and wellbeing support at the very junior end of the Bar
Not one to say, ‘I told you so,’ Sam Thomas continues his cyber series with the key learnings from the major supply chain attack affecting 80 law firms and at least one set of chambers at the end of 2023
One year on and the Court of Appeal fails to quash convictions after receiving evidence of racism in the jury room, and there are still no revisions to the Equal Treatment Bench Book , says Keir Monteith KC
Increasing sophistication and frequency of attacks have led many chambers to ask ‘when’ not ‘if’ they will suffer a cyber incident. Simon Davis sets out the factors to consider when renewing your cyber cover
