Corporate disputes

Introduction to corporate disputes

There is vast potential for disputes to arise within a corporate context. Included within this subtopic is practical guidance and/or an overview of some of the issues pertinent to claims involving:

  1. directors

  2. agents

  3. shareholders, in particular, guidance is provided on:

    1. unfair prejudice claims

    2. petitions to wind up on the just and equitable ground, and

    3. derivative claims

In terms of relief for minority shareholders, bringing an unfair prejudice petition is the primary route available, but each of the three shareholder actions listed above can be in effect deployed as a means to achieve proper value for a member in respect of their shares.

The rule against reflective loss and the following common corporate dispute scenarios are also addressed in this subtopic:

  1. joint venture disputes

  2. breach of warranty claims

Directors

Tasked with managing the day-to-day business, a large number of corporate disputes will involve company directors.

Typically directors of companies benefit from a limited liability status, where they are able to trade and enter into arrangements on their company’s behalf while being personally

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents