Proceeding contribution from Lord Goldsmith (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
moved Amendment No. 135:"Page 109, line 32, at end insert—" ““(2A) If it appears to the court that the application and the evidence filed by the applicant in support of it do not disclose a prima facie case for giving permission (or leave), the court— (a) must dismiss the application, and (b) may make any consequential order it considers appropriate. (2B) If the application is not dismissed under subsection (2A), the court— (a) may give directions as to the evidence to be provided by the company, and (b) may adjourn the proceedings to enable the evidence to be obtained. (2C) On hearing the application,”” On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 242 [Whether permission to be given]:
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 681 c885
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Contracts Accountability Charities Community interest companies Company law Companies Directors Animal experiments Fraud Finance Families Liability Insolvency Harassment Public companies Private companies Shares Shareholders
- Legislation
- Company Law Reform Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:02:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320684
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320684
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_320684