Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In the case of Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding, the Court of Appeal had to determine the relevant limitation period in a claim in respect of alleged breach of duty by two directors. Marc Brown, barrister at St Philips Chambers, explains the background to the appeal and implications of the judgment.
Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Fielding and another  EWCA Civ 557,  All ER (D) 111 (Jun)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing a company’s appeal against a judge’s ruling that its claim for breach of fiduciary or statutory duty was time-barred, held that section 21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which provided that no period of limitation prescribed by LA 1980 applied to an action by a beneficiary under a trust to recover from the trustee trust property or the proceeds of trust property in the possession of the trustee, included a transfer to a company directly or indirectly controlled by the trustee. Accordingly, no period of limitation applied to the present claim. Further, the availability of a postponed limitation period, such that those proceedings had been commenced in time, under LA 1980, s 32, could not be determined on an application for summary judgment.
This case concerned a claim by a company in liquidation against some of its former directors for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of statutory duty under sections 171–173, 175 and 177 of the Companies Act 2006, alleging that a distribution in specie of the claimant company’s shareholding in another company on 12 October 2007 was unlawful and in breach of duty, including on the basis that the claimant did not have sufficient accumulated realised profits to make the distribution.
It was common ground that the claim form was issued more than six years after the date of the distribution in specie which occurred on 12 October 2007.
The defendants made an application for summary judgment
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234