Johnson v gore wood and co 2002 2 ac 1
Nettet14. des. 2000 · ON 14 DECEMBER 2000. LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL. My Lords, There are two parties before the House. The first is Mr. Johnson, the plaintiff in the … NettetJohnson v Gore Wood and Co. [2002] 2 AC 1. 2. Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v Newman (No. 2) [1982] 1 All ER 354. 3. Arklow Investments Ltd v Maclean [2000] 1 W.L.R. 594. ... Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (No.1) [2001] 2 W.L.R. 72 House of Lords Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hutton, and …
Johnson v gore wood and co 2002 2 ac 1
Did you know?
Nettet3. des. 2003 · On 19 April 1991, WWH obtained summary judgment against Gore Wood in the Company action but on 12 June 1991 the Court of Appeal allowed Gore Wood's … NettetVi vil gjerne vise deg en beskrivelse her, men området du ser på lar oss ikke gjøre det.
Nettet27. jan. 2004 · The order of the court following this judgment, which was not pronounced until 17 July 2002, awarded Mr Johnson damages of only £88,791.16p, with interest of … Nettet27. jan. 2004 · Following a five week trial, Hart J handed down judgment on 3 May 2002. The order of the court following this judgment, which was not pronounced until 17 July 2002, awarded Mr Johnson damages of only £88,791.16p, with interest of £81,182.32, making a total of £169,973.48. Mr Johnson now appeals, and Gore Wood cross-appeal.
NettetJohnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, applied Macaura v Northern Assurance Company Limited & Others. 2 [1925] AC 619, cited Metyor Inc v Queensland Electronic Switching Pty Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 186, [2002] QCA 269, cited Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) Nettet15. feb. 2016 · “ [A] shareholder … is not debarred from recovering damages because the defendant owed a separate and similar duty of care to the company, provided that the loss suffered by the shareholder is separate and distinct from the loss suffered by the company” (Johnson at 51, per Lord Hutton).
http://www.ronaldjjwong.com/2016/02/15/article-proper-plaintiff-rule-and-no-reflective-loss-principle/
At first instance Mr Johnson succeeded as Pumfrey J in the High Court held that Gore Wood was estopped by convention from contending that the claims were an abuse of process as both parties had tacitly agreed that such claims could be brought when they entered into the settlement agreement. Se mer Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2000] UKHL 65 is a leading UK company law decision of the House of Lords concerning (1) abuse of process relating to litigating issues which have already been determined in prior litigation or by way of … Se mer Mr Johnson was a director and majority shareholder in a number of companies, including Westway Homes Limited (referred to in the judgment as "WWH"). Gore Wood & Co were a firm of solicitors who acted for the companies and also occasionally for Mr … Se mer The case has generally been accepted as correctly decided and stands as an authoritative proposition of the law. Se mer The leading judgment was given by Lord Bingham, although all five Law Lords gave speeches of varying lengths. Abuse of process Their Lordships considered at some length previous decisions of the English courts in relation to abuse of … Se mer • Abuse of process Se mer 1. ^ "Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co. [2000] UKHL 65". Practical Law. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 2. ^ "Litigation: The claim game". … Se mer university wic clinicNettetJohnson v Gore Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1 Landune International Ltd v Cheung Chung Leung Richard [2006] 1 HKC 517 Waddington Ltd v Chan Chun Hoo [2009] 4 HKC 381. 3. Common law exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. (a) Ultra vires / illegal conduct. Smith v Croft (No 2) [1988] Ch 114 receivership in real estateNettet26. jun. 2024 · The leading case is Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (No. 1) [2002] 2 AC 1. That case decided that whether litigation of a decided issue was an abuse depended upon all the circumstances. university wide agreement