Law Case Summaries ; 13 January 2000
THE FOLLOWING notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Keene v Martin and another; CA (Kennedy, Mummery LJJ) 3 Nov 1999.
ON A true construction of s 359 of the Companies Act 1985, there was a distinction between jurisdiction and discretion to rectify the register of members of a company. Jurisdiction to rectify the register was conferred by s 359(1). A general discretionary power was conferred on the court by s 359(3), so that a court to which an application to rectify was made might, on such application, decide any question relating to the title of a person who is a party to the application to have his name entered in or omitted from the register... and generally may decide any question necessary or expedient to be decided for rectification of the register.
Matthew Collings (Needleman Treon) for K; Simon Taube (Mark Gilbert Morse, Newcastle upon Tyne) for M.
Re Migration Services International Ltd; Ch D (Neuberger J) 11 Nov 1999.
WHEN DETERMINING whether a person was unfit to be a director under s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, contravention of s 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which concerned restriction on re-use of company names, was a matter to which the court might have regard under s 9 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
Antony White (Fox Williams) for the first respondent; David Chivers (Howes Percival, Norwich) for the Official Receiver.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Oshin; Re Oshin; QBD, Div Ct (Tuckey LJ, Moses J) 3 Nov 1999.
THERE WAS nothing in the language of article 9 of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons 1983 or the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 to indicate that a repatriated prisoner's sentence should be treated as or converted into an English sentence. The sentence remained that of the sentencing court, and the Secretary of State was simply enforcing it.
Flo Krause (Woolcombe Beer Watts) for the applicant; Steven Kovats (Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Norowzian v Arks Ltd and others (No 2); CA (Nourse, Brooke, Buxton LJJ) 4 Nov 1999.
A FILM could be a dramatic work for the purposes of s 1(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. A dramatic work was a work of action, with or without words or music, which was capable of being performed before an audience. A film would often, though not always, be a work of action and it was capable of being performed before an audience. …