R v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers: Can the Regulator be regulated -Manoj Reddy Keshireddy The Court of appeal was considering the question whether the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers which was an unincorporated organisation without legal personality is amenable to judicial review. The Panel on Takeovers was a self-regulating organisation overseeing and regulating takeovers and mergers in corporate sector. The said panel, however, had no statutory, prerogative or common law powers. M/s. Datafin, for takeover of which company two other companies were vying with each other, complained to the Panel that both the companies acted in concert contrary to the terms of the takeover Code. The complaint was rejected by the Panel. The High Court refused to entertain an application for judicial review on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Before the Court of appeal, the Panel on Takeovers contended that the Courts ' power of judicial review is confined to bodies whose power is derived solely from the legislation or exercise the prerogative power. The contention was rejected holding that any body discharging public duties is amenable to judicial review. The Said decision was passed by the bench consisting of Sir John Donaldson M.R, Lloyd and Nicholls L.JJ. In the next parts, we shall try answering the question posed by the title from the excerpts of the Judgments of their Lordships. The Judgment of Sir John Donaldson M.R. Efficiency Argument: At the
The highly controversial case of Gambotto v WCP Ltd not only reduced the ability of companies to acquire shares compulsorily through an amendment to their constitutions, but also stimulated debate around the topic of share acquisition itself . The High Court decision in Gambotto was recognized immediately to be extremely important in the corporate world, with one headline stating it had “radically altered the balance of power within corporate Australia” . Despite the significance of the ruling, responses to Gambotto have generally been negative. Courts have almost uniformly chosen not to extend the principles in Gambotto to situations in other cases, with the result that the principles have stayed narrowly confined to the
be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at
Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority  EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062
Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors  QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.
The trial court held for the defendants because he found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered on that issue. [No opinion issued from this court]
Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in
The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of New South Wales under s 119 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) , where the Court decided in Norrie’s favour. It was stated that,
When the case was finally to be decided before the bench, the new Lord gave a blisteringly powerful closing argument when it looked to all that the case was lost. They should have known better. Monboddo’s five-hour speech turned the tide for Douglas as well as gaining for his Lordship a brilliant legal reputation.