- within Law Department Performance topic(s)
- with readers working within the Healthcare industries
In Gamett v Hughes [2026] EWHC 2004 (Ch) (handed down on 30 July 2026) Jeremy Richmond KC, leading Sam Mitchell, successfully represented the first defendant / respondent in the dismissal on mandatory grounds of the Claimant’s “Stage 2” application for permission to continue a complex derivative action against the first defendant / respondent.
The court was faced with an application for permission to continue a derivative claim under s.260 of the E&W Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) by one of two equal shareholders against the other. The case concerned questions of directors’ duties in the context of an E&W company and its associated German entity. Unusually, the derivative action was primarily founded on an alleged oral agreement between the two shareholders concerning the operation of the associated German entity, to which the E&W company was not a party.
The court refused permission both on the mandatory ground in s.263(2)(a) CA 2006 (no director acting in accordance with s.172 CA 2006 would have pursued the claim) and as a matter of the court’s discretion under s.263(3) CA 2006.
In reaching those conclusions, two particularly important factors were: (i) the poor merits of the claim and (ii) the apparent availability of a parallel personal claim by the applicant against the first defendant / respondent. While recognising the need to avoid a “mini-trial”, the court was ...
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
