14 Dec 2005
The defendant raised sufficient doubts and an arguable defence based on competing accounts, shareholder arrangements and allegations of false accounting such that the matter was not suitable for summary determination; accordingly the application for summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend was granted.
12 Dec 2005
The petition was struck out because the monthly payment was a personal arrangement between the shareholders and not conduct related to the company's affairs under s.168A(1); there was insufficient evidence of deadlock to justify winding up under s.177(1)(f); winding up is a last resort and internal remedies had not been exhausted.
16 Mar 2001
The court held there was no final and binding agreement as of 1 November 1995 because essential and substantial terms remained unresolved and negotiations continued; therefore the new company could not be treated as having conclusively taken over the firms and the plaintiff was entitled to equitable relief including accounts, delivery up of specified assets and a declaration of dissolution on his leaving date.
3 Feb 2000
The court held that the references to legal action in the defendant's solicitors' letters could not reasonably be understood as repudiating the arbitration agreement; the plaintiffs advanced no other valid grounds to resist the stay; accordingly, applying the principle that a stay must be granted where the dispute falls within a valid arbitration agreement, the stay sought by the 4th Defendant was granted.