Revenue & Customs v Walsh

Revenue & Customs v Walsh

The requisite degree of similarity between the company names exists to bring the wider context into play, and in that context, the public would likely associate the two companies. The judge did not err in law, and the proposed appeal raises no arguable point of law.

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
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Liability of Directors, Prohibited Company Names, Interpretation of Insolvency Act 1986 Sections 216 and 217
Insolvency Law Company Law Personal Liability of Directors Prohibited Company Names Interpretation of Insolvency Act 1986 Sections 216 and 217

Case Brief

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

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 judge erred in law by allowing factual context to override the statutory test for similarity of company names

Ratio Decidendi

The requisite degree of similarity between the company names exists to bring the wider context into play, and in that context, the public would likely associate the two companies. The judge did not err in law, and the proposed appeal raises no arguable point of law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs