<?xml version='1.0' ?>
<rss version='2.0'>
<channel>
<title>lawindexpro - Company Case Law Update</title>
<pubdate>25 April 2011</pubdate>
<lastbuilddate>25 April 2011</lastbuilddate>
<language>en-us</language>
<managingEditor>ds@lawindexpro.co.uk</managingEditor>
<webMaster>ds@lawindexpro.co.uk</webMaster>
<description>Case law database England, Scotland, Nothern Ireland, Europe</description>
<link>http://lawindexpro.co.uk</link>

<item>
	<title>Williams and Others -v- Redcard Ltd and Others</title>
	<description>20-Apr-11 - CA - The parties disputed whether the defendant company had effectively executed a contract for the sale of land. Two  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=432926</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=432926</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Farstad Supply As -v- Enviroco Ltd</title>
	<description>06-Apr-11 - SC - The court was asked by the parties to a charterparty whether one of them is an "Affiliate" of the charterer for the  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=431825</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=431825</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Clyde and Co Llp and Another -v- Winkelhof</title>
	<description>22-Mar-11 - QBD - The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=430748</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=430748</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Progress Property Company Ltd -v- Moorgarth Group Ltd</title>
	<description>08-Dec-10 - SC - The appellants appealed against rejection of their claim that there had been an unlawful distribution of capital when  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=426898</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=426898</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Lindsay -v- O'Loughnane</title>
	<description>18-Mar-10 - QBD - The claimant had purchased Euros through a foreign exchange dealer. The dealer company became insolvent, causing losses  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=403367</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=403367</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Zeital and Another -v- Kaye and Others</title>
	<description>05-Mar-10 - CA - The deceased had held an apartment through beneficial interests in shares in a limited company. He died intestate. The  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=402536</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=402536</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Online Catering Ltd v Acton and Another</title>
	<description>10-Feb-10 - CA - The claimant agreed for the defendant to repair its fleet of vehicles. The defendant, having fees outstanding, entered  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=396716</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=396716</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Hammonds LLP v Jones</title>
	<description>21-Dec-09 - CA - Partners had left the solicitors firm during the year. They had taken drawings calculated on the basis of anticipated  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=392502</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=392502</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills v Aaron and Others</title>
	<description>10-Dec-09 - ChD - The claimant sought a disqualification after the defendants had been directors of a company mis-selling Structured  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=383827</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=383827</guid>
</item>
 

<item>
	<title>Kohli v Lit and Others</title>
	<description>13-Nov-09 - ChD - The claimant asserted that the other shareholders had acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to her within the company.  . . .</description>
	<link>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=377911</link>
	<guid>http://www.lawindexpro.co.uk/cgi-bin/pubcited.pl?idx=377911</guid>
</item>
 
</channel>
</rss>

