- Unsuccessful attempt to vary court order in light of coronavirus (COVID-19) (Dinglis v Dinglis)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: In unfair prejudice proceedings the court refused an application to vary a previous order setting a date for the valuation of the petitioner’s shareholding on account of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, whether under CPR 3.1(7) or by reference to the court’s broad discretion under section 996 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The court considered that permitting a variation on the facts of this case would be unfair since it would, in effect, be giving the respondents in the petition ‘two bites at the cherry’. Written by Niraj Modha, barrister, at 39 Essex Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial