File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Attribution in Company Law

TitleAttribution in Company Law
Authors
KeywordsAttribution
Ex turpi causa
Hampshire Land
Issue Date2014
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.modernlawreview.co.uk/default.asp
Citation
The Modern Law Review, 2014, v. 77, p. 794-807 How to Cite?
AbstractIn Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir (No 2), the Court of Appeal held that the ex turpi causa defence was inapplicable by refusing to attribute the fraud of the directors and the sole shareholder to the company in connection with the company’s claim against them and third party co-conspirators. It is significant that the court has not only clarified the law in relation to attribution, but it did so by rejecting the majority’s reasoning and endorsing the dissenting judgment in the House of Lords decision in Stone & Rolls (in liquidation) v Moore Stephens (a firm). This article evaluates the decision in Bilta by critically examining the fundamental principles and policies that apply to the three distinct circumstances under which corporate attribution should or should not take place.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/202314
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.855
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.623
SSRN
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLim, WKE-
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-15T01:39:36Z-
dc.date.available2014-09-15T01:39:36Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationThe Modern Law Review, 2014, v. 77, p. 794-807-
dc.identifier.issn0026-7961-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/202314-
dc.description.abstractIn Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir (No 2), the Court of Appeal held that the ex turpi causa defence was inapplicable by refusing to attribute the fraud of the directors and the sole shareholder to the company in connection with the company’s claim against them and third party co-conspirators. It is significant that the court has not only clarified the law in relation to attribution, but it did so by rejecting the majority’s reasoning and endorsing the dissenting judgment in the House of Lords decision in Stone & Rolls (in liquidation) v Moore Stephens (a firm). This article evaluates the decision in Bilta by critically examining the fundamental principles and policies that apply to the three distinct circumstances under which corporate attribution should or should not take place.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.modernlawreview.co.uk/default.asp-
dc.relation.ispartofThe Modern Law Review-
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com-
dc.subjectAttribution-
dc.subjectEx turpi causa-
dc.subjectHampshire Land-
dc.titleAttribution in Company Lawen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLim, WKE: elimwk@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84906751696-
dc.identifier.hkuros236525-
dc.identifier.volume77-
dc.identifier.spage794-
dc.identifier.epage807-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000313253300006-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.ssrn2489066-
dc.identifier.hkulrp2014/029-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats