Revenue & Customs v Walsh [2005] EWCA Civ 1291 (14 October 2005)

Revenue & Customs v Walsh [2005] EWCA Civ 1291 (14 October 2005)

The requisite degree of similarity between the company names exists, and the wider context supports the conclusion that the public would associate the two companies; thus, the statutory prohibition applies and the appeal raises no arguable point of law.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1291
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Commissioners of HM Revenue & Customs; Defendant/appellant: Sean Gerard Walsh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Liability of Directors, Prohibited Names Under Insolvency Act, Interpretation of Sections 216 and 217 Insolvency Act 1986
Insolvency Law Company Law Personal Liability of Directors Prohibited Names Under Insolvency Act Interpretation of Sections 216 and 217 Insolvency Act 1986

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioners of HM Revenue & Customs

Claimant/respondent

Sean Gerard Walsh

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the name 'Walsh Construction Limited' is a prohibited name under section 216(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as suggesting an association with 'SG&T Walsh and Company Limited'
  2. 2 Whether the context in which company names are used is relevant to determining prohibited name status

Ratio Decidendi

The requisite degree of similarity between the company names exists, and the wider context supports the conclusion that the public would associate the two companies; thus, the statutory prohibition applies and the appeal raises no arguable point of law.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs