WebStudy with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like No profit rule, Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 135, Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 and more. Home. Subjects. Expert solutions. Study sets, textbooks, questions. ... McKenzie v McDonald [1927] VLR 134. WebRegal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company. The Court held that a director is in breach of his duties if he takes advantage of an opportunity that the …
Parolen Ltd (plaintiff) v Doherty & Lindat Ltd - Case Law - vLex
WebJun 30, 2024 · The action was brought by Regal against the first five respondents who were former directors of Regal, to recover from them sums of money amounting to £7,018 8s. 4d., being profits made by them upon the acquisition and sale by them of shares in a subsidiary company formed by Regal and known as Hastings Amalgamated Cinemas Ltd. WebView on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 A.C. 134 (20 February 1942), PrimarySources What's on Practical Law? Show less Show more. Practical Law. Practical ... Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 A.C. 134 (20 February 1942) Practical Law Case Page D-000-5616 (Approx. 1 page) room on the broom play
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver (1942) - FLIP HTML5
WebAug 14, 2024 · Phipps [8] and Regal (Hastings) v. Gulliver [9] . Therefore, with this in mind, it could be argued that, for the purposes of imposing a constructive trust, a fiduciary relationship arises in (a) because the money that Peter ends up with in his account is not his and he has, thus, received an unjust enrichment. Web2. On 22 December 2004, ... (which owned a long leasehold interest in the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel) from Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Ltd (“the Vendor”) for €211.5m. The purchase was a joint venture between the claimants in ... Ltd v Gulliver (Note) (1942) [1967] 2 AC 134, 144-145, by Lord Russell, where he said this: WebOct 6, 2024 · 83 The typical examples are the “hand in the till” cases, such as Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 A.C. 102 (H.L.); the self-dealing cases such as Aberdeen Rwy Co. v Blaikie Bros (1854) Macq 461, [1843-60] All E.R. 249 (H.L.); the “opportunity” cases such as Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 A.C. 46 (H.L.) and Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v Gulliver [1967] 2 … room on the broom picture