File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/1468-2230.12091
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84906751696
- WOS: WOS:000313253300006
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Attribution in Company Law
Title | Attribution in Company Law |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Attribution Ex turpi causa Hampshire Land |
Issue Date | 2014 |
Publisher | Blackwell 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 n. 5, p. 794-807 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/202314 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.5 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.267 |
SSRN | |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Lim, WKE | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-09-15T01:39:36Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-09-15T01:39:36Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | The Modern Law Review, 2014, v. 77 n. 5, p. 794-807 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0026-7961 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/202314 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In 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.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.modernlawreview.co.uk/default.asp | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | The Modern Law Review | - |
dc.rights | The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com | - |
dc.subject | Attribution | - |
dc.subject | Ex turpi causa | - |
dc.subject | Hampshire Land | - |
dc.title | Attribution in Company Law | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Lim, WKE: elimwk@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/1468-2230.12091 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84906751696 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 236525 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 77 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 5 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 794 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 807 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000313253300006 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | - |
dc.identifier.ssrn | 2489066 | - |
dc.identifier.hkulrp | 2014/029 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0026-7961 | - |