Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians [1963] 2 QB 606 is a UK labour law and UK company law case from the Court of Appeal. It covers the issue of what it means to act in the best interests of the company, relevant under section 172 of the Companies Act 2006. See more Two managing directors of a film company, John and Roy Boulting, applied for a declaration that while they were performing 'management functions' (e.g. producing and directing) they were not eligible for … See more A majority Court of Appeal held that there was no principle which prevented every employee from becoming union members. Lord Justices Upjohn and Diplock held, firstly, there was nothing ultra vires about rule 7. Secondly, the fiduciary rule that one should not put … See more 1. ^ Nowadays, the closed shop is contrary to Article 11 ECHR, a breach of freedom of association. 2. ^ This was possibly inspired by the same interpretation of the word "employee" in US labor law. 3. ^ [1963] 2 QB 606, 626-627 See more • Directors' duties • Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 27 June 1996. P. H. Asscher v Staatssecretaris van Financiën. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad - Netherlands. Article 52 of the EC Treaty - Requirement of equal treatment - Income tax on non-residents. Case C-107/94. See more Webwith the concurrence of Diplock L.J. in Boulting v. Association of Cinematograph Television and Allied Technicians [1963] 1 All E.R. 716 at pp. 733 and 734 that section 4 does not prevent the issue of an injunction to restrain the commission of a future tort. On the other hand Scrutton and Atkin L.JJ. in Ware $? De Freville Ltd. v.
About: Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, …
Web"It would seem well established on the authority of Boulting v. Associa tion of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians that a com pany is entitled to the … WebA company can expect the ‘undivided loyalty of its directors’. The rule is a broad and flexible one to be fashioned according to changing circumstances and to be applied with common sense (Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians [1963]). Where the rule applies, however, the nature of the liability is ... oundle surgery system online
University of Warwick institutional repository: …
WebJohn and Roy Boulting, two of the company’s directors, liked the script and were willing to put up £1,000 towards the £6,000 total budget, leaving Miles and his co-producer Sara Bennett to find the rest. ... ^ Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians 4th Feb 1963 The High Court ^ An Uncompetitive Cinema ... WebBoulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. was an application by the Boulting brothers who were joint managing directors of a company which produced films for a declaration that their membership of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians (ACTT) would amount to a breach of rod tinseth insurance