Nexbell Ltd, Re [2021] EWHC 1258 (Ch) (17 May 2021)

Nexbell Ltd, Re [2021] EWHC 1258 (Ch) (17 May 2021)

Permission to continue the derivative claim is granted because the claim is strong, focused, and commercially justified; a director acting in accordance with section 172 would attach importance to continuing it, there is no alternative remedy that would be preferable, and the applicant is acting in good faith. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1258 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sujata Chohan; Defendant: Jayendra Janardan Ved; Defendant: Nexbell Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim (companies Act 2006) / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Claim (section 261(1) CA 2006)
Outcome
Permission granted to continue derivative claim; indemnity for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Directors' Duties, Authority of Directors, Section 172 Companies Act 2006, Section 261 and 263 Companies Act 2006, Indemnity for Costs, Alternative Remedies (unfair Prejudice)
Company Law Insolvency Law Derivative Claims Directors' Duties Authority of Directors Section 172 Companies Act 2006 Section 261 and 263 Companies Act 2006 Indemnity for Costs +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sujata Chohan

Claimant

Jayendra Janardan Ved

Defendant

Nexbell Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim (companies Act 2006) / Application for Permission to Continue Derivative Claim (section 261(1) CA 2006)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to continue a derivative claim under section 261(1) Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the claim is brought in good faith and for the benefit of the company
  3. 3 Whether a director acting in accordance with section 172 would continue the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to continue the derivative claim is granted because the claim is strong, focused, and commercially justified; a director acting in accordance with section 172 would attach importance to continuing it, there is no alternative remedy that would be preferable, and the applicant is acting in good faith. The lack of independent expert evidence is not fatal as the relief sought is declaratory, not compensatory.

Court Disposition

Permission granted to continue derivative claim; indemnity for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Permission granted to Mrs Chohan to continue the derivative claim pursuant to section 261(4)(a) Companies Act 2006.
  • Nexbell Limited to indemnify Mrs Chohan against liability for costs incurred in the permission application and the underlying derivative claim pursuant to CPR 19.9E.