Multiple issues notability October 2011 unreferenced October 2011 unreferenced December 2009 CLIST Command List pronounced C List is a Procedural programming procedural programming language for Time Sharing Option TSO in MVS systems. It originated in OS 360 Release 20 and has assumed a secondary role since the availability of Rexx in TSO E Version 2. In its basic form, a CLIST program or CLIST for short can take the form of a simple list of command computing commands to be executed in strict sequence like a DOS batch file .bat file . However, CLIST also features If Then Else logic as well as loop constructs. CLIST is an interpreted language . That is, the computer must translate a CLIST every time the program is executed. CLISTs therefore tend to be slower than programs written in compiled language s such as COBOL , FORTRAN , or PL I PL 1 . A program written in a compiled language is translated once to create a load module or executable . CLIST can read write MVS files and read write from to a TSO terminal. It can read parameters from the caller and also features a function to hold global variables and pass them between CLISTs. A CLIST can also call an MVS application program written in COBOL or PL I , for example . CLISTs can be run in background by running Job Control Language JCL which executes the TSO control program IKJEFT01 . TSO I O screens and menus using ISPF dialog services can be displayed by CLISTs. Compare the function of CLIST with that provided by REXX . Example program PROC 0 WRITE HELLO WORLD Adding If Then Else logic MULTI LINGUAL HELLO WORLD PROGRAM. THIS CLIST, STORED AS USERID.TSO.CLIST TEST , CAN BE INVOKED FROM THE ISPF COMMAND LINE AS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING ... as a separate routine. DEFAULTSORT Clist Category IBM mainframe operating systems Category Procedural programming languages Compu lang stub mainframe compu stub de CLIST fr Command LIST pl CLIST ru CLIST ... more details
Infobox football biography playername Simon Clist image File Simon Clist York City v. Oxford United 17 10 09.png 175px caption Clist playing for Oxford United F.C. Oxford United fullname Simon James Clist height height ft 5 in 9 dateofbirth birth date and age 1981 6 13 df y cityofbirth Bournemouth countryofbirth ... 19 goals6 0 caps7 9 goals7 0 pcupdate 01 36, 7 March 2012 UTC Simon James Clist born 13 June 1981 ... . Career Born in Bournemouth , Clist began his career as a trainee with Tottenham Hotspur ... sport1 hi football teams t torquay united 2785439.stm title Clist joins Torquay publisher ... t torquay united 2858517.stm title Clist loan spell extended publisher BBC Sport date 2003 03 27 accessdate 2009 02 03 ref Clist returned to Ashton Gate , but was again transfer listed by City manager ... 4529385.stm title Clist agrees new deal with Barnet publisher BBC Sport date 2005 05 09 accessdate ... football teams b barnet 4757475.stm title Clist among six barnet departures publisher BBC Sport date ... title Forest Green get midfielder Clist publisher BBC Sport date 2006 05 29 accessdate 2009 02 03 ref Clist played at Forest Green making over 100 appearances whilst being involved in some of the club ... title Clist in deadline day Oxford move publisher BBC Sport date 2009 02 02 accessdate 2009 ... cite news url http www.oufc.co.uk page News 0,,10342 2424491,00.html title Simon Clist goes out on loan publisher Oxford United F.C. date 2011 18 18 accessdate 2009 02 03 ref Clist made his Hereford ... . ref name Bulls make Clist deal permanent cite web url http www1.skysports.com football news 11750 7409504 Bulls make Clist deal permanent title Bulls make Clist deal permanent publisher Sky Sports ... football 16392375.stm title Hereford United sign Oxford United s Simon Clist on permanent deal publisher ... 17174 Simon Clist Hereford United F.C. squad Persondata NAME Clist, Simon ALTERNATIVE NAMES SHORT DESCRIPTION ... OF DEATH DEFAULTSORT Clist, Simon Category 1981 births Category Living people Category People from ... more details
Infobox EU legislation type Directive title Directive on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation number 2006 54 EC madeby Council of the European Union Council madeunder Art. 13 TEC OJref L180, 22 26 OJrefurl http eur lex.europa.eu LexUriServ LexUriServ.do?uri OJ L 2006 204 0023 01 EN HTML commenced implementation CommProp ESCOpin ParlOpin Reports replaces amends amendedby replacedby status Current The Equal Treatment Directive http eur lex.europa.eu LexUriServ LexUriServ.do?uri OJ L 2006 204 0023 01 EN HTML 2006 54 EC is an Act of the European Union , which implements the principle of equal treatment between men and women in EU labour law . Background Since the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force in 1999, new EU laws, or EU Directive Directives , have been enacted in the area of anti discrimination. The Equal Treatment Directive 2006 54 EC is a consolidation of previous Directives in this area, notably, the Directive 76 207 EEC , which was amended by Directive 2002 73 EC . Content Expand section date January 2012 See also Clist directdiscrim Clist indirectdiscrim Clist justification EU labour law UK labour law List of European Union directives Notes reflist 2 References External links http eur lex.europa.eu LexUriServ LexUriServ.do?uri OJ L 2006 204 0023 01 EN HTML Text of the Directive http ec.europa.eu social main.jsp?catId 423&langId en European Commission Anti discrimination Category Discrimination law Category European Union directives by number 2006 54 Category Gender equality Category International relations Category 2006 in law Category 2006 in the European Union Category Employment Directives EU stub de Richtlinie 2006 54 EG Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinie ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Horsey v Dyfed County Council court Employment Appeal Tribunal image caption date decided full name citations 1982 IRLR 395 judges Browne Wilkinson J prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Discrimination, stereotyping Horsey v Dyfed County Council 1982 IRLR 395 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for causation of discrimination. Facts Mrs Horsey lived in Aberystwyth, but her husband got a job in London. She applied for a secondment to do a social service course in Maidstone, so she could live with him. Her employer said no, as was found, because the employer thought she would probably not return. This was found to be on the basis of a generalised assumption that married women follow their husband s jobs. Judgment Browne Wilkinson J held that Mrs Horsey had been discriminated against through this stereotyping. He said the words on the grounds of in the SDA 1975 cover cases where the alleged discriminator acts on generalised assumptions as to the characteristics of women or married or coloured persons and not just where the sole factor influencing the decision of the alleged discriminator is the sex, marital status or race of the complainant . See also Clist directdiscrim Clist justification UK labour law EU labour law Notes reflist 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name ICI Ltd v Shatwell court House of Lords image caption date decided full name citations 1965 AC 656 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Volenti non fit injuria ICI Ltd v Shatwell 1965 AC 656 is a UK labour law case concerning Facts Two shot firing brothers were injured because they could not be bothered to take the mandatory precautions. Judgment Lord Denning MR held that they were not entitled to compensation. See also Clist unfair dismissal UK labour law Unfair dismissal Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law Category House of Lords cases Category 1965 in case law Category 1965 in the United Kingdom ... more details
Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co 1919 1 Ch 290 is a UK company law case, concerning the validity of an alteration to a company s constitution, which adversely affect the interests of one of the shareholders. Facts British Abrasive Wheel Co needed to raise further capital economics capital . The 98 majority were willing to provide this capital if they could buy up the 2 minority. Having failed to effect this buying agreement, the 98 purposed to change the articles of association to give them the power to purchase the shares of the minority. The proposed article provided for the compulsory purchase of the minority s shares on certain terms. However, the majority were prepared to insert a provision regarding price which stated that the minority would get a price which the court thought was fair. Judgment Astbury J held that the alteration was not for the benefit of the company as a whole and could not be made. One reason for this was that there was no direct link between the provision of the extra capital and the alteration of the articles. Although the whole scheme had been to provide the capital after removing the dissenting shareholder s, it would in fact have been possible to remove the shareholders and then refuse to provide the capital. See also Clist minority protection Clist co constitution UK company law Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd 1900 1 Ch 656 Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co Ltd 1920 1 Ch 154 Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co 1907 Ltd 1920 2 Ch 124 Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co Maidenhead 1927 1 Ch 154 Southern Foundries 1926 Ltd v Shirlaw 1940 AC 701 Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd 1951 Ch 286 Notes Refs 2 DEFAULTSORT Brown V British Abrasive Wheel Co Category Business law Category United Kingdom company case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Aveling Barford Ltd v Perion Ltd court High Court image caption date decided full name citations 1989 BCLC 626 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Reduction of capital Aveling Barford Ltd v Perion Ltd 1989 BCLC 626 is a UK company law case concerning reduction of capital . It held that a sale at an undervalue of an asset was a dress up and unlawful reduction of capital. The proper procedure for reduction of capital is now found in CA 2006 sections 641 653. Facts Mr Lee owned and controlled both Aveling Barford Ltd and Perion Ltd. Aveling Barford had a sports ground and with it, residential planning permission, but it did not have enough money to make a distribution to its shareholders. So the property of Aveling Barford was conveyed to Perion for 350,000, when its actual resale value was 1,520,000. Aveling Barford then went into liquidation. The liquidator sued to have Perion be declared a constructive trustee of the resale proceeds price. Judgment Hoffmann J held that it was the director s duty to obtain the full value of the land for Aveling Barford, so Mr Lee was in breach of fiduciary duty . He was, therefore, accountable as a constructive trustee. Whether or not the act was approved by all shareholders was irrelevant since the company cannot return its capital to shareholders without court leave, or following the special procedure. This was a dressed up distribution , it was ultra vires and incapable of validation or ratification. Cquote The rule that capital may not be returned to shareholders is a rule for the protection of creditor s and the evasion of the rule falls within what I think Slade LJ had in mind when he spoke of fraud on creditors. See also Clist shares Clist personality UK company law CA 2006 s 845 Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd 2010 UKSC 55 Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom company case law Category Grantham ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenh user Tirols court European Court of Justice image caption date decided 22 April 2010 full name citations 2010 http eur lex.europa.eu LexUriServ LexUriServ.do?uri CELEX 62008J0486 EN HTML C 486 08 , 2010 IRLR 631 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Holidays, part time, fixed term work Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenh user Tirols 2010 http eur lex.europa.eu LexUriServ LexUriServ.do?uri CELEX 62008J0486 EN HTML C 486 08 is an EU labour law case, relevant for UK labour law , concerning Facts Full time workers became part time workers, but had not already taken their accrued rights to paid annual leave. The employer contended that as part timers they should only be able to take leave at the rate available as part time staff. The workers claimed this breached the Part time Workers Directive and the Fixed term Workers Directive Judgment The ECJ held that although it was appropriate to apply the pro rata principle for holidays when an employee is part time, a change, and in particular a reduction, of working hours when moving from full time to part time employment cannot reduce the right to annual leave that the worker has accumulated during the period of full time employment but has not been able to exercise while working full time. It was not compatible with EU law to provide the worker can only take accrued leave with reduced holiday pay. See also Clist time Clist atypical EU labour law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law Category Austrian case law Category European Union case law Category 2010 in case law Category 2010 in Austria ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Danfoss court European Court of Justice image caption date decided full name Handels og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss citations 1989 http eur lex.europa.eu smartapi cgi sga doc?smartapi celexplus prod CELEXnumdoc&numdoc 61988J0109&lg en C 109 88 , 1989 ECR 3199 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Handels og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss 1989 http eur lex.europa.eu smartapi cgi sga doc?smartapi celexplus prod CELEXnumdoc&numdoc 61988J0109&lg en C 109 88 is an EU labour law case, relevant for UK labour law , which held that if an employer is to justify indirect discrimination, measures taken must be directly related to being able to do the job. Facts Pay in the workplace was set according to adaptability, training and seniority. The effect was that women were paid less. Judgment ECJ held that adaptability to variable hours, place of work or training was justifiable only if these criteria were of importance for the performance of specific tasks entrusted to the employee . However, it also added that, length of service goes hand in hand with experience and since experience generally enables the employee to perform his duties better, the employer is free to reward it without having to establish the importance it has in the performance of specific tasks entrusted to the employee . See also Clist eu equality Clist justification UK employment discrimination law UK labour law Notes reflist 2 External links Category United Kingdom labour case law Category Discrimination law in the United Kingdom ... more details
Infobox Court Case name James v Eastleigh BC court House of Lords image caption date decided full name citations 1990 2 AC 751 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords James v Eastleigh Borough Council 1990 2 AC 751 is a leading discrimination case relevant for UK labour law , concerning the test for discrimination. It rejected that motive was in any way a part of the test for discrimination. This precludes the legality of positive discrimination, or any other kind of discrimination which may involve a benign motive. Facts Mr James had to pay for the swimming pool, but Mrs James did not because she was below pensionable age. He claimed there was direct discrimination not indirect, whereby there would probably be a successful justification . Mr James claimed that this was contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 section 29. Judgment Lord Bridge, Lord Ackner and Lord Goff held that this was discrimination on grounds of sex under SDA 1975 s 1 1 , because it followed the state pensionable and that was itself discriminatory. Lord Goff that Sir Nicholas Browne Wilkinson VC s desire test was not appropriate. One need not focus at all on intention or motive, because one can simply ask, would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex? Cquote I have to stress, however, that the but for test is not appropriate for cases of indirect discrimination under s 1 1 b , because there may be indirect discrimination against persons of one sex under that subsection, although a proportionately smaller group of persons of the opposite sex is adversely affected in the same way. Lord Griffiths and Lord Lowry dissented. See also Clist directdiscrim Clist justification UK labour law EU labour law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name R EOC v Birmingham City Council court House of Lords image caption date decided full name citations 1989 AC 1155 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Education discrimination R Equal Opportunities Commission v Birmingham City Council 1989 AC 1155 is a discrimination case, relevant for UK labour law case, concerning the appropriate comparisons that should be made. Facts Birmingham only provided 360 grammar school places for girls, and 540 for boys. At first instance, the EOC won. The Court of Appeal upheld this. The Council appealed, arguing it had not shown that selective education was better than non selective education as a precondition to showing less favourable treatment, and in any case the Council had no intention or motivation to discriminate. Judgment Lord Goff dismissed the council s appeal, saying first that it did not need to be shown that selective education was better , just that girls were not being given the same opportunities. Second, it is enough that there is less favourable treatment and the intention or motive of the defendant to discriminate, though it may be relevant so far as remedies are concerned is not a necessary condition to liability. That would be a bad idea because then it would be a good defence for an employer to show that he discriminated against women not because he intended to do so but for example because of customer preference, or to save money, or even to avoid controversy. See also Clist directdiscrim Clist justification UK labour law EU labour law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Hampson v Department of Education and Science court Court of Appeal image caption date decided full name citations 1989 ICR 179 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Objective justification, indirect discrimination Hampson v Department of Education and Science 1989 ICR 179 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for justification of discrimination. Facts A language teacher from Hong Kong had done a two year training course at home. She came to the UK where the requirement was for three year qualifications. She did a further one year training course. The Secretary of State refused to recognise her qualification as comparable, because her three years was not consecutive. She argued this was race discrimination. However, the Secretary of State argued it fell within the exception under the Race Relations Act 1976 section 41 acts done under statutory authority . Judgment The Court of Appeal, upholding the EAT, found for the Department under RRA 1976 section 41. Balcombe LJ, dissenting, would have remitted the case to tribunal to assess justification. He set out the current approach for justification, relying on Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board which incorporated the test given in Bilka Kaufhaus . Cquote It requires an objective balance between the discriminatory effect of the condition and the reasonable needs of the party who applies the condition . the employer had to show a real need on the part of the undertaking, objectively justified, although that need was not confined to economic grounds it might, for instance, include administrative efficiency in a concern not engaged in commerce or business. Clearly it may, as in the present case, be possible to justify by reference to grounds other than economic or administrative efficiency. See also Clist directdiscrim Clist justification UK labour law EU labour law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name London Underground Ltd v Edwards No 2 court Employment Appeal Tribunal image caption date decided full name citations judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords London Underground Ltd v Edwards No 2 1997 IRLR 157 is a leading discrimination case relevant for UK labour law , concerning objective justification of indirect discrimination. Facts Ms Edwards, a single parent, could not keep up child care after the Underground altered its shift system. She had worked as a train driver for ten years. The Tribunal held that they could have easily, without losing the objectives of their plan and reorganisation, have accommodated the applicant who was a long serving employee They did not address themselves to these issues Judgment Morison J dismissed the employer s appeal. It may be that London Underground would have wished to implement the single parent link but gave in to pressure from their predominantly male workforce. First, he said, the more clear it is that the employers unreasonably failed to show flexibility in their employment practices, the more willing the tribunal should be to make a finding of unlawful discrimination. Second, employers can change rosters, but should carefully consider the impact which a new roster might have on a section of their workforce. Third, nothing said here should be construed as favouring positive discrimination. See also Clist directdiscrim Clist justification UK labour law EU labour law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Re Lipinski s Will Trusts court image caption date decided full name citations 1976 Ch 235 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Certainty, express trusts Re Lipinski s Will Trusts 1976 Ch 235 is an English trusts law case, concerning the policy of the beneficiary principle and unincorporated associations . Facts Mr Harry Lipinski, who was active in the Hull Jewish community, gave the residual part of his estate as to one half thereof for the Hull Judeans Maccabi Association in memory of my late wife to be used solely in the work of constructing the new buildings for the association and or improvements to the said buildings . The other half was one quarter for the Hull Hebrew School Talmud Torah , and one quarter for the Hull Hebrew Board of Guardians. The next of kin challenged these provisions, questioning whether the gift to the association would not be void. Judgment Oliver J held that the bequest was to the association absolutely, so in fact they did not need to use it for buildings only constrained by the contract . The purpose was within the association s power to do, and it would be up to them to honour it. Cquote If a valid gift may be made to an unincorporated body as a simple accretion to the funds which are the subject matter of the contract which the members have made inter se I do not really see why such a gift, which specifies a purpose which is within the powers of the association and of which the members of the association are the beneficiaries, should fail Where the donee association is itself the beneficiary of the prescribed purpose, there seems to me to be the strongest argument in common sense for saying that the gift should be construed as an absolute one within the second category Oliver J also remarked upon Re Denley as a Re Bowes type of case, where a purpose is disregarded, while saying it was both with authority and with common sense . See also Clist beneficiary policy Clist associat ... more details
Cobbe v Yeoman s Row Management Ltd 2008 UKHL 55 is a House of Lords case in English property law and relates to proprietary estoppel in English contract law . Facts The claimants entered into an oral agreement with the defendants in respect of the redevelopment of their property. The defendant subsequently withdrew from the agreement once the planning permission for the development had been obtained. Judgment The House of Lords ruled that the unconscionable behaviour of the defendant did not give rise to either proprietary estoppel or a Constructive trusts in English law constructive trust in favour of the claimant. ref http business.timesonline.co.uk tol business law reports article4698235.ece Times Law Report ref See also Clist estoppel English contract law English property law Notes refs External links http www.publications.parliament.uk pa ld200708 ldjudgmt jd080730 yeoman 1.htm House of Lords judgment Category English contract case law Category English property case law Category House of Lords cases Category 2008 in case law Category 2008 in the United Kingdom ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Hutton v Warren court image caption date decided full name citations 1836 1 M&W 460 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Parke B transcripts keywords Implied terms, custom Hutton v Warren 1836 1 M&W 460 is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms. Facts A farm tenant claimed that it was the custom of the country that the landlord would give a reasonable allowance for seeds and labour to keep the land arable, and that he would leave manure should the landlord wish to purchase it. Judgment Parke B held in favour of the farm tenant, because as he said, in commercial transactions, extrinsic evidence of custome and usage is admissible to annex incidents to written contracts matters with respect to which they are silent. See also Clist implied terms English contract law Notes refs 2 References External links Category English contract case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Tomlinson v Gill court image caption date decided full name citations 1756 Ambler 330 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Lord Hardwicke transcripts keywords Privity Tomlinson v Gill 1756 Ambler 330 is an English contract law case concerning Privity in English law privity of contract . It stands as an example of the flexible approach to privity under the earlier common law. Facts Expand section date April 2011 Judgment Lord Hardwicke decided that a third person is entitled to sue if there can be spelt out of the contract an intention by one of the parties to contract as trustee for him, even though nothing was said about any trust in the contract, and there was no trust fund to be administered. See also Clist privity English contract law Notes Reflist 2 References External links Category English contract case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Hilder v Dexter court House of Lords image caption date decided full name citations 1902 AC 474 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Share, issue at a discount Hilder v Dexter 1902 AC 474 is a UK company law case concerning share s. Facts To raise working capital, United Gold Coast Mining Properties Ltd offered shares at par value to Mr Hilder and others with an option to take further shares at par for two years. After the share price rose, Mr Hilder wished to exercise his option. Judgment Earl of Halsbury LC held that Hilder was entitled to exercise the option, as it in no way directly or indirectly contravened the rule against issuing shares at a discount under CA 1900 section 8 2 now CA 2006 section 580 . See also Clist shares UK company law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom company case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Anglo Petroleum v TFB Mortgages Ltd court image caption date decided full name citations 2008 1 BCLC 185 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Share Anglo Petroleum v TFB Mortgages Ltd 2008 1 BCLC 185 is a UK company law case concerning financial assistance . Facts A company in trouble, undergoing restructuring, undertook to pay back money after its acquisition. The seller of shares was only willing to sell if it received 15m. The company agreed to pay 15m to the parent, and the company s shares were then sold for 1. Judgment The court held this was not financial assistance , because the agreed payment merely reduced the shares value to 1, rather than assisting in the purchase of the shares. See also Clist shares UK company law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom company case law ... more details
ref Failure of consideration main Failure of consideration in English law Clist discharge by breach ... for the recovery of money paid Claim by the party in breach for the value of the work done Clist impossibility ... Mistakes Clist mistakes main Mistake in English law Misrepresentation in English law Mistaken ... Clist misrepresentation Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 1878 3 App Cas 1218, on misrepresentation Ignorance Clist ignorance main Ignorance in English law Common law strict liability subject ... law Duress Clist pressure main Duress in English law Undue influence and exploitation Clist weakness ... Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978 ss 1 1 , 2 1 , 2 3 , 3, 6 1 Necessity Clist necessity main Necessity in English law Illegality Clist illegality main Illegality in English law Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd Incapacity Clist incapacity main Incapacity in English law Ultra vires in English law Companies ... at 32 . Tracing and proprietary restitution Clist tracing seealso Tracing in English law Tracing ... more details
trusts Creation of express trusts in English law Intention and formality Clist trust formality main ... and he, in taking up directorship, had acted detrimentally. Certainty Clist trust certainty main ... Purpose trusts Clist beneficiary policy see also Purpose trusts Purpose trusts in English law Morice ... Deed 1969 1 Ch 373 Clist associations Leahy v Attorney General for New South Wales 1959 AC 457 Re ... in the United Kingdom Goode Report 1993 Pensions Act 2004 Pensions Act 2008 Resulting trusts Clist resulting ... in English law Constructive trusts Clist constructive trusts main Constructive trusts in English law ... as to the correct course of action. Administration Clist trust administration Appointment ..., set up by his father Purposes and discretion Clist trustee discretion FSMA 2000 s 19, trustees ... Sieff v Fox 2005 1 WLR 3811 Pitt v Holt 2011 EWCA Civ 197 Duty of loyalty Clist fiduciary loyalty ... AC 46 Holder v Holder 1968 Ch 353 Duty of care Clist fiduciary care see also Duty of care Speight v ... Breach of trust Clist trust breach see also Liability of Trustees inter se in English law Breach of trust ... ref Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns 1996 AC 421 Murad v Al Saraj Tracing Clist tracing see also Tracing ... Foskett v McKeown 2001 1 AC 102 Knowing receipt Clist receipt seealso Knowing receipt Bank of Credit and Commerce International Overseas Ltd v Akindele 2001 Ch 437 Dishonest assistance Clist assistance ... more details
Yewens v Noakes 1880 6 QBD 530, was an English tax law case which addressed the question of the division between master and servant. Facts There was a statutory exemption for duty on inhabited houses where premises were occupied by a servant or other person.... for the protection thereof. Judgment The Court of Appeal held that a clerk who earned 150 a year did not fall within the definition of servant. Lord Justice Bramwell gave judgment said, a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. Lord Justice Thesiger said it was obvious that a salaried clerk was not a servant any more than were the manager of a bank, a foreman with high wages, persons in the position almost of gentlemen. See also Clist worker scope Contract of employment UK labour law R v Negus Notes refs 2 References Category United Kingdom labour case law Category English vicarious liability cases Category Baron Bramwell cases Category 1880 in case law Category 1880 in the United Kingdom Category Legal articles without infoboxes ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Jones v Lipman court High Court date decided full name citations 1962 1 WLR 832 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Lifting the veil Jones v Lipman 1962 1 WLR 832 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil . It exemplifies the principal case in which the veil will be lifted, that is, when a company is used as a mere facade concealing the true facts , which essentially means it is formed to avoid a pre existing obligation. Facts Mr Lipman contracted to sell a house at 3 Fairlawn Avenue, Chiswick , Middlesex now Ealing W4 to Mr Jones for 5,250. He changed his mind and refused to complete. To try and avoid a specific performance order, he conveyed it to a company formed for that purpose alone, which he alone owned and controlled. Judgment Russell J ordered specific performance against Mr Lipman and the company. Cquote The defendant company is the creature of the first defendant, a device and a sham, a mask which he holds before his face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity. See also Clist personality UK company law Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom company case law Category United Kingdom corporate personality cases ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Nocton v Lord Ashburton court Judicial Committee of the House of Lords House of Lords image date decided 19 June 1914 full name citations 1914 AC 932 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Professional negligence , assumption of responsibility Nocton v Lord Ashburton 1914 AC 932 is a leading English tort law case concerning professional negligence and the conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another. Facts Lord Ashburton was buying a property for 60,000 on Church Street, Kensington , London . His solicitor was Mr Nocton. Mr Nocton advised Lord Ashburton to release part of the mortgage security. This was a bad idea, because as Mr Nocton in fact knew, this meant that the security would become insufficient. Lord Ashburton alleged the advice was not given in good faith, but rather in Mr Nocton s self interest. Judgment Viscount Haldane LC for the House of Lords held that despite Derry v Peek which had disallowed any claim for misstatements apart from in the tort of deceit Mr Nocton was liable for his bad advice given the fiduciary relationship between the solicitor and client. See also Clist assumption Hedley Byrne Notes reflist 2 Category English tort case law Category House of Lords cases Category 1914 in case law Category 1914 in the United Kingdom ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
