Bienvenido a Opuslibros
Inicio - Buscar - Envíos - Temas - Enlaces - Tu cuenta - Libros silenciados - Documentos Internos

     Opuslibros
¡Gracias a Dios, nos fuimos
Ir a la web 'clásica'

· FAQ
· Quienes somos
· La trampa de la vocación
· Contacta con nosotros si...
· Si quieres ayudar económicamente...
· Política de cookies

     Ayuda a Opuslibros

Si quieres colaborar económicamente para el mantenimiento de Opuslibros, puedes hacerlo

desde aquí


     Cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para obtener datos estadísticos de la navegación de nuestros usuarios y mejorar nuestros servicios. Si continúa navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede obtener más información aquí

     Principal
· Home
· Archivo por fecha
· Buscar
· Enlaces Web
· Envíos (para publicar)
· Login/Logout
· Ver por Temas

     Login
Nickname

Password

Registrate aquí. De forma anónima puedes leerlo todo. Para enviar escritos o correos para publicar, debes registrarte con un apodo, con tus iniciales o con tu nombre.

     Webs amigas

Opus-Info

NOPUS DEI (USA)

ODAN (USA)

Blog de Ana Azanza

Blog de Maripaz

OpusLibre-Français

OpusFrei-Deutsch


 Tus escritos: El otro itinerario jurídico.- Sharon Sharia

110. Aspectos jurídicos
Sharon Sharia :

Para quien le interese el tema jurídico, les anexo los datos de referencia de la sentencia del caso Roche v Sherrington de 1982. Se trata de un numerario que mientras trabajaba en Kenya entrego su salario de 16,000 libras esterlinas al "Opus Dei" así como otras sumas a la cuenta bancaria de otros dos miembros del Opus Dei. El juez le dio la razón al exnumerario argumentando que como los directores ya no ocupaban los cargos y como ellos no obtuvieron un beneficio personal no se podría ejercitar la acción legal contra los directores (las personas singulares) sino contra la institución. (Lo que explica por qué frecuentemente cambian a los directores de consejos locales o delegaciones donde han sido demandados para colocarlos en otra obra corporativa...)

 

Este caso de Roche v Sherrington ha sido importante e incluso citado en libros de texto para hablar de la presunta indebida influencia (Presumed Undue Influence) de la institución al abusar de la confianza que se le había otorgado para hacerle firmar determinados contratos.

 

Saludos y mis mejores deseos para que la justicia aunque coja, llegue.

 

Sharon Sharia

 

 

Status:

Roche v Sherrington

Chancery Division

13 October 1981

Case Analysis



Where Reported

[1982] 1 W.L.R. 599; [1982] 2 All E.R. 426; (1982) 126 S.J. 312

Case Digest

Subject: Civil procedure Other related subjects: Company law

Keywords: Common interest; Fiduciary relationship; Representative actions; Undue influence; Unincorporated associations

Summary: Unincorporated association; undue influence; representative action

Abstract: There is no reason in principle why a special fiduciary relationship cannot exist between a member of an unincorporated association and the association giving rise to a claim for undue influence, in relation to those members at the time when the claim arose. It is an essential condition of bringing a representative action that all the persons represented should have the same interest. P brought an action against D1 and D2 as representing the present members of "Opus Dei," an unincorporated association forming an organisation within the Roman Catholic Church with branches in many countries, with separate sections for men and women. While working in Kenya he paid a sum of over GBP 16,000 from his salary to "Opus Dei" by way of gifts, and a further sum to a bank account in the joint names of himself and C and B, two fellow members, who had drawing rights on the account, and all the moneys were then paid out to D3, an English charity controlled by "Opus Dei." He alleged that their sums were obtained by way of undue influence and ought to be set aside and repaid. D1 claimed to have the claim struck out on the ground that the action was not properly constituted as a representative action within Rules of the Supreme Court# Ord.15, r.12, that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that it was frivolous and vexatious.

Held, that (1) there was no reason why a special fiduciary relationship could not exist between P and an unincorporated association, and P had an arguable case that such existed between him and the persons who were members at the relevant dates; but since the statement of claim was formulated as a claim against all the present members, many of whom were not members at the relevant dates and who were not capable of benefiting from the payments, and D1 had not personally done anything wrong or benefited, no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against him or the present members on whose behalf he was being sued (Allcard v Skinner (1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 145 and Tufton v Sperni [1952] 2 T.L.R. 516 considered); it was an essential condition of bringing a representative action that the persons represented had the same common interest. Since there might be separate defences open to members who were female or resident in different countries, the action was not properly constituted under the rule; failure to comply with it was not a mere irregularity which could be waived by the entry of an unconditional appearance, and accordingly all reference to D1 must be struck out and the action dismissed against him; (2) the court also ordered all proceedings against D3 to be stayed until the joinder of C and B or further order, since they were prima facie entitled with P to any relief, and had to be made parties to the action in the absence of any sufficient evidence justifying the giving of leave to the contrary under RSC, Ord.15, r.4(2).

Judge: Slade, J.

Significant Cases Cited

Estate of Brocklehurst (Deceased), Re

[1978] Ch. 14; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 696; [1978] 1 All E.R. 767; (1977) 121 S.J. 633; CA (Civ Div)

Wenlock v Moloney

[1965] 1 W.L.R. 1238; [1965] 2 All E.R. 871; (1965) 109 S.J. 496; CA

Tufton v Sperni

[1952] 2 T.L.R. 516; [1952] W.N. 439; CA

Allcard v Skinner

(1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 145; CA

All Cases Cited

Estate of Brocklehurst (Deceased), Re

[1978] Ch. 14; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 696; [1978] 1 All E.R. 767; (1977) 121 S.J. 633; CA (Civ Div)

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy

[1975] Q.B. 326; [1974] 3 W.L.R. 501; [1974] 3 All E.R. 757; [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 366; (1974) 118 S.J. 714; CA (Civ Div)

J Bollinger SA v Goldwell Ltd (No.1)

[1971] F.S.R. 405; [1971] R.P.C. 412; Ch D

Craig (Deceased), Re

[1971] Ch. 95; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1219; [1970] 2 All E.R. 390; (1970) 114 S.J. 171; Ch D

Wenlock v Moloney

[1965] 1 W.L.R. 1238; [1965] 2 All E.R. 871; (1965) 109 S.J. 496; CA

Campbell v Thompson

[1953] 1 Q.B. 445; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 656; [1953] 1 All E.R. 831; (1953) 97 S.J. 229; QBD

Tufton v Sperni

[1952] 2 T.L.R. 516; [1952] W.N. 439; CA

Hardie & Lane Ltd v Chiltern (Tort)

[1928] 1 K.B. 663; CA

London Association for the Protection of Trade v Greenlands Ltd

[1916] 2 A.C. 15; HL

Mercantile Marine Service Association v Toms

[1916] 2 K.B. 243; CA

Walker v Sur

[1914] 2 K.B. 930; CA

Allcard v Skinner

(1887) L.R. 36 Ch. D. 145; CA

All Cases Citing

Mentioned by

Smithkline Beecham Plc v Avery

[2009] EWHC 1488 (QB); [2011] Bus. L.R. D40; Official Transcript; QBD

Mentioned by

Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc (The Irish Rowan)

[1991] 2 Q.B. 206; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 117; [1989] 3 All E.R. 853; [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 144; (1990) 87(5) L.S.G. 39; (1990) 134 S.J. 426; Times, May 5, 1989; CA (Civ Div)

Mentioned by

News Group Newspapers Ltd v Society of Graphical and Allied Trades (SOGAT) 1982

[1987] I.C.R. 181; [1986] I.R.L.R. 337; (1986) 136 N.L.J. 893; Times, August 1, 1986; QBD

Mentioned by

Catlin v Cyprus Finance Corp (London) Ltd

[1983] Q.B. 759; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 566; [1983] 1 All E.R. 809; (1983) 80 L.S.G. 153; (1982) 126 S.J. 744; Times, October 27, 1982; QBD

Significant Legislation Cited

Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.15, r.12Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.15, r.4(2)

Legislation Cited

Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 1776)

Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 1776) para.12

Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 1776) para.13

Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 1776) para.19

Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 1776) para.2

Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 1776) para.4

Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.15, r.12Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.15, r.4(2)

Books

Goff & Jones the Law of Restitution 7th Ed.

Chapter: Chapter 11 - Recovery of Benefits Conferred Under Undue Influence

Documents: Section 3 - Presumed Undue Influence

 

Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability 6th Ed. Incorporating Fourth Cumulative Supplement

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Duties and Obligations

Documents: Sub-section (ii) - Undue Influence and the Burden of Proof

 

Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability 6th Ed.

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Duties and Obligations

Documents: Sub-section (ii) - Undue Influence and the Burden of Proof

 

© 2011 Sweet & Maxwell




Publicado el Wednesday, 06 April 2011



 
     Enlaces Relacionados
· Más Acerca de 110. Aspectos jurídicos


Noticia más leída sobre 110. Aspectos jurídicos:
Estatutos del Opus Dei - 1982


     Opciones

 Versión imprimible  Versión imprimible

 Respuestas y referencias a este artículo






Web site powered by PHP-Nuke

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest by me

Web site engine code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Página Generada en: 0.148 Segundos