Assignment - Company Law LW300

Added on - 31 May 2021

  • 10


  • 2474


  • 9


  • 0


Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 10 pages
Running head: COMPANY LAWName:Aileen ByrneStudent ID:15104655Subject:Business Law IIAssignment Title:Assignment 4-Company LawModule:LW300.3Lecturer:Michael CoyneBibliography Included?YesDate:07/05/2018
1COMPANY LAWIssueThe following are the Acts that are relevant to this case:1. The Criminal Damage Act 19912. Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 20013. The Companies Act 2014The following are the issues that need to be addressed:What rights do each of the directors have under the law?Does Mark have the same rights on his approved leave?Has Mark been subjected to prejudicial treatmentDoes Mark have the right to bring a claim against the DanDid Dan have the right to enter the company into a contract with the estate agentwithout the other members?What are the repercussions of Mark using Dan’s password to access and downloadinformation from the company intranet?Mark has contacted customers outside of business hours, are there any legalrepercussions to this action?RuleAccording to the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 section 9, when aperson having dishonest intentions whether outside or within the state, uses or abet the use ofa computer system within the state having the wish of making personal gain or a gain foranother or an intention to cause loss to another person is liable for an offence. Those persons
2COMPANY LAWwho have been convicted of such offence may be imposed with a fine as well as animprisonment of up to 10 years in Jail.In the case of R v Governor of Brixton Prison the court held that a person had “operated” acomputer when he entered unauthorized codes in the computer for the purpose of makinggain. In the case of R v Thompson, the appellant was the computer programmer of the bankof Kuwait. Allegations had been made that he used his programming to debit five accountsand credit his own account. This was held as an offence under s 9.It has been further provided by the Criminal Damage Act 1991 that when a person operates acomputer without any lawful excuse, within the state having the want of accessing a datawhich is within or outside the state will be guilty of an offence irrespective of whether he hasaccessed any data or not.According to the provisions of section 4(1) of the Theft and Fraud Offences Act 2001 aperson is made guilty of an offence if there has been an dishonest act involving appropriationof property without the consent of the owners (Stout et al 2016).Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 is a primary case in relation to the oppression of minorityshareholders. In this case an action had been brought by two minority shareholders of acompany against the directors. There was allegation that misapplication of company assetshave been done by the directors. In this case it had been held by the court that theshareholders were not the appropriate plaintiff to bring the claim. The principle of separatelegal entity ensures that when company has been subjected to detriment a claim should bebrought by the company itself. The same principles had been upheld in the case of O'Neill vRyan and Others (1990).However the above rule is subjected to a few exceptions which have developed over the yearsand the minority shareholders are allowed to bring a claim. In these situations what happens
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document