Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far?
Until recently, it was widely accepted that a recipient of company distributions such as dividends paid in breach of the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 (the Act) could only be made to repay such distributions if he knew of the illegality. Whether one looked to the Act (to wit, section 277) o...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2005
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197305006835 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research-1740 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research-17402010-09-21T08:36:04Z Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far? THAM, Chee Ho Until recently, it was widely accepted that a recipient of company distributions such as dividends paid in breach of the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 (the Act) could only be made to repay such distributions if he knew of the illegality. Whether one looked to the Act (to wit, section 277) or beyond (to the knowing receipt-type liability encountered in Precision Dippings Ltd. v. Precision Dippings Marketing Ltd.), liability required knowledge. In Bairstow v. Queen’s Moat House plc, however, there appears to be the faintest of suggestions that this position may be open for re-examination. This is reinforced by Lord Nicholls’ recent speech in Criterion Properties Plc v. Stratford UK Properties LLC. 2005-01-01T08:00:00Z text https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/741 info:doi/10.1017/s0008197305006835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197305006835 Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Contracts |
institution |
Singapore Management University |
building |
SMU Libraries |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
SMU Libraries |
collection |
InK@SMU |
language |
English |
topic |
Contracts |
spellingShingle |
Contracts THAM, Chee Ho Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far? |
description |
Until recently, it was widely accepted that a recipient of company distributions such as dividends paid in breach of the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 (the Act) could only be made to repay such distributions if he knew of the illegality. Whether one looked to the Act (to wit, section 277) or beyond (to the knowing receipt-type liability encountered in Precision Dippings Ltd. v. Precision Dippings Marketing Ltd.), liability required knowledge. In Bairstow v. Queen’s Moat House plc, however, there appears to be the faintest of suggestions that this position may be open for re-examination. This is reinforced by Lord Nicholls’ recent speech in Criterion Properties Plc v. Stratford UK Properties LLC. |
format |
text |
author |
THAM, Chee Ho |
author_facet |
THAM, Chee Ho |
author_sort |
THAM, Chee Ho |
title |
Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far? |
title_short |
Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far? |
title_full |
Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far? |
title_fullStr |
Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Unjust Enrichment and Unlawful Dividends: A Step Too Far? |
title_sort |
unjust enrichment and unlawful dividends: a step too far? |
publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
publishDate |
2005 |
url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197305006835 |
_version_ |
1772829538844147712 |