The MV Lilian S 1 1 Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd 5 Court of Appeal‚ at Mombasa Nyarangi‚ Masime & Kwach JJ A November 17‚ 1989 Civil Appeal No 50 of 1989 (Appeal from an order of the High Court at Mombasa‚ Bosire J‚ in Admiralty Cause No 29 of 1988 dated 28th February‚ 1989) Admiralty Law – admirality jurisdiction of the High Court Kenya – circumstances in which the jurisdiction can be invoked – Judicature Act (Cap 8)‚ section 4 – Supreme Court Act‚ 1981 sections
Premium Appeal Court Supreme court
Chappell & Co Ltd v The Nestlé Co Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 701 House of Lords Nestlé‚ manufacturers of wrapped chocolate bars‚ advertised for sale‚ as part of an advertising campaign‚ the record ’Rockin’ Shoes’. The price of the record was 1s 6d plus three wrappings from their 6d chocolate bars. Chappell‚ who were the sole licensees of the copyright of ’Rockin’ Shoes’‚ claimed that Nestlé had infringed their copyright and sought injunction and damages. Nestlé claimed that they were entitled to
Premium Gramophone record Contract Sales
http://www.studymode.com/subjects/souter-v-shyamba-pty-ltd-page1.html Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897)- company is a separate legal entity Lee v Lee’s Air Farming (1961) Case Summary: The facts disclosed that in 1954‚ Mr. Lee had formed the respondent company carrying on the business of crop spraying from the air. Mr. Lee owned 2‚999 of the company’s 3‚000 shares. Apart from that‚ he also was the company’s governing director whereby he had appointed himself as the only pilot of the company
Premium Employment
Strong Tie Ltd. This case is about the decision to hire a consultant to provide an analysis of the company’s performance and to provide suggestions on future actions. Strong Tie Ltd.‚ located in Winnipeg Manitoba‚ manufactured connectors to be used to reinforce wood joints. Bill Johnstone created this company to capitalize on the high demand for the housing market. After his death‚ the family owned business was passed on to his son‚ who ran the business along with his daughters. Strong Tie Ltd. made investments
Premium Revenue Financial ratios Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
Undergraduate Laws Case note March 2014: Important case note LA3021 Company law Prest v Petrodel Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1395 Facts The parties were married in 1993. The wife was granted a divorce in 2008. In an action for ancillary relief the husband argued that properties could not be transferred to the wife as they were legally owned by various companies. These companies were wholly owned and controlled by the husband. The question on appeal was whether the court has power to order the transfer
Premium Law Appeal Supreme court
a true reflection of the organization. Signed: Dated: Table of Contents 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE 3 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 3. METHODOLOGY 3 4. INTRODUCTION TO THE ORGANISATION 4 4.5 External regulation affecting the organization 4 4.6 Inkwell Ltd-Key external stakeholders 5 5. THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 5 5.3 The accounts department-Key internal stakeholders 6 6. REVIEW OF THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM 7 6.3 Working methods
Premium International Financial Reporting Standards Accounting software International Accounting Standards Board
Bàitập 1 – Chương 1 HãyđọccácđoạntríchtrongbảnánvàxácđịnhcácnguồnluậtvàTòaánđãsửdụng Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd From Wikipedia‚ the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Broderip v Salomon) Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 is a landmark1 UK company law case. The effect of the Lords ’ unanimous 2 ruling was to uphold 3firmly the doctrine4 of corporate personality‚ as set out in the Companies Act 1862‚ so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company ’s shareholders
Premium Corporation
Table of Contents 1 introduction 1 2 2 3 Corporation Background 3 3.1 Organization 3 3.2 Market Position 3 3.3 Government Impact 4 3.4 Description of Competitors 4 4 Capital Structure 6 4.1 Blackmores’ Current & Historical Leverage 6 4.1.1 Debt to Equity Ratio 6 4.1.2 Degree of Financial Leverage and Operating Leverage 8 4.2 Capital Expenditure and Financing 9 4.3 Capital Structure Relative to Competitors 10 4.4 Bankruptcy Risk Assessment 11 4.5 Leverage Policy
Premium Dividend yield Dividend Weighted average cost of capital
Blackmores Ltd Table of Contents 1 introduction 1 2 2 3 Corporation Background 3 3.1 Organization 3 3.2 Market Position 3 3.3 Government Impact 4 3.4 Description of Competitors 4 4 Capital Structure 6 4.1 Blackmores’ Current & Historical Leverage 6 4.1.1 Debt to Equity Ratio 6 4.1.2 Degree of Financial Leverage and Operating Leverage 8 4.2 Capital Expenditure and Financing 9 4.3 Capital Structure Relative to Competitors 10 4.4 Bankruptcy Risk Assessment 11 4
Premium Dividend yield Dividend Weighted average cost of capital
Case 11-6 Lessee Ltd. Lessee Ltd.‚ a British company that applies IFRSs‚ leased equipment from Lessor Inc. on January 1‚ 2007‚ for a period of three years. Lease payments of $100‚000 are due to Lessor Inc. each year. Other expenses (e.g.‚ insurance‚ taxes‚ maintenance) are also to be paid by Lessee Ltd. and amount to $2‚000 per year. The lessor did not incur any initial direct costs. The lease contains no purchase or renewal options and the equipment reverts back to Lessor Inc. on the expiration
Premium Lease Finance lease