Mr Kulkarni’s case
Mr Kulkarni’s case
While not disputing that the Judge had regard to the principal authorities on remediability, Mr Butler argued that he failed properly to have regard to the seriousness of the breaches, the motive with which they were committed and their broader impact. There is, Mr Butler submitted, much more to remediability than reversing the outcome alone. In any event, neither the A Shares Breach nor the B Shares Breach was, or could have been, remedied within the 10 business days set by clause 7.1(d) of the SHA; the supposed basis for the purported termination giving rise to the Termination Breach was spurious; and nothing could undo the failure to allow Mr Hussain to take up his directorship between May and November of 2021. Further, the longer that the breaches were persisted in, the more they departed from remediability.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Early history
- The SHA
- Subsequent history
- The issues
- Clause 7.1(d)
- The Judgment
- Mr Kulkarni’s case
- Discussion
- The Judgment
- Mr Kulkarni’s case
- Authorities
- Discussion
- Legal principles
- Mr Kulkarni’s case
- The Judgment
- Discussion
- Issue (iv): Excluding the pre-existing relationship from consideration
- Mr Kulkarni’s case
- The Judgment
- Discussion
- The Judgment
- Mr Kulkarni’s case
- Authorities
- Legal principles
- Discussion
- Conclusions
![CA-2024-001924 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1206](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png)