Langley Ward Ltd v Trevor & Anor

Langley Ward Ltd v Trevor & Anor

None of the claims advanced by the applicant pass the statutory threshold for permission to continue as derivative claims; most are speculative, unsubstantiated, or better resolved in liquidation, and no director acting in accordance with section 172 would prosecute them.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Langley Ward Limited; Defendant/respondent: Gareth Wynn Trevor; Defendant/respondent: Seven Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Action
Outcome
permission refused
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Director Duties, Winding Up, Statutory Procedure, Shareholder Disputes
Company Law Derivative Claims Director Duties Winding Up Statutory Procedure Shareholder Disputes

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Langley Ward Limited

Claimant/applicant

Gareth Wynn Trevor

Defendant/respondent

Seven Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to continue derivative claims on behalf of the company under Companies Act 2006 section 260 ff
  2. 2 Whether the claims meet the threshold requirements under section 260(3) and section 263(2)
  3. 3 Whether the claims are better resolved in liquidation rather than litigation

Ratio Decidendi

None of the claims advanced by the applicant pass the statutory threshold for permission to continue as derivative claims; most are speculative, unsubstantiated, or better resolved in liquidation, and no director acting in accordance with section 172 would prosecute them.

Court Disposition

permission refused

Orders

  • Permission to continue derivative claims refused.
  • Application for indemnity by the company refused.