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.
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
Guy Adams, barrister at St John’s Chambers, reviews the decision in Davy v Pickering, which concerns the directions and provisions the court can make when restoring a company to the register of companies, as specified under section 1032(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).
Davy v Pickering and others  EWCA Civ 30,  All ER (D) 104 (Jan)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellants’ appeal against a judge’s decision to restore a company to the register of companies, where the respondent sought to pursue a claim for compensation regarding alleged negligence on the part of the company. The court held that, on the evidence, it was not possible to conclude that the respondent would have taken the required acts against the company in the relevant time period.
That in order to obtain a limitation direction upon the restoration of a company to the register it is necessary to establish a clear causal link between the dissolution of a company and the failure to bring proceedings within the applicable limitation period. Any application for limitation direction should therefore be supported by evidence that, but for the fact that the company had been struck off the register, proceedings would have been issued on a date within the relevant limitation period.
Mr Davy, a former flight officer for BA, alleges that he was given negligent advice by a company, then called Heather Moor & Edgecomb Limited, to transfer his pension plan out of the BA company scheme in 2001. He further alleges that the company, which was owned and directed by Mr and Mrs Pickering, had transferred valuable assets to its shareholders and their pension trustee in 2010 at an undervalue. This left the company with no assets to meet any claim he might make at the time it was struck off the register in 2012.
The principal issue was whether it was sufficient, as the judge at first instance had found ([2
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