Milner v Milner Laboratories [2000] JRC 123 (03 July 2000)

Milner v Milner Laboratories [2000] JRC 123 (03 July 2000)

The request for an extension of time is refused because the respondents failed to provide a clear commitment to comply and the application appears to be a delaying tactic rather than a genuine need for more time. The history of non-disclosure by the directors supports refusal.

Citation
[2000] JRC 123
Parties
Respondent: Mr. Leech; Respondent: Mr. Smith; Respondent: Mr. Sim; Applicant: Representor (minority shareholder)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time / Post Interim Order, Application to Extend Compliance Period
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Disclosure Obligations, Minority Shareholder Rights
Civil Procedure Company Law Extension of Time Disclosure Obligations Minority Shareholder Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Leech

Respondent

Mr. Smith

Respondent

Mr. Sim

Respondent

Representor (minority shareholder)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time / Post Interim Order, Application to Extend Compliance Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be granted an extension of time to comply with a court order for disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The request for an extension of time is refused because the respondents failed to provide a clear commitment to comply and the application appears to be a delaying tactic rather than a genuine need for more time. The history of non-disclosure by the directors supports refusal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • Summons for extension of time dismissed
  • Standard costs awarded to the representor