Mills v Mills [1938] 60 CLR 150
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:05:42 UTC
Directors voted to pay out profits of a company in form of bonus shares to ordinary shareholders (instead of dividends). As result, voting power of preference shareholders was severely diminished.
Claimant, who had preference shares, sued for breach of duty.
Held
Where directors allot shares, is impractical to look at whether power was exercised for benefit of company.
Rather test for proper purposes is one of fairness as between individual shareholders.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Howard Smith v Ampol Petroleum
Company was subject to rival takeover bids from two of its shareholders. One bidder had 55% of shares, but was clear that the other offer was better for company. Thus directors of company allotted $1...
Hogg v Cramphorn
In corporate governance, directors are guided by fiduciary duties to prioritize the company's best interests. This involves strategic decisions like issuing shares and lending money to maintain contr...
Re Sunrise Radio Ltd
Claimant had 15% shareholding in a company. Company made issue of shares despite knowing that Claimant would be unable to exercise her rights to pre-emption, and as result shareholders was decreased...
Right and Issue Investment Trust Ltd v Stylo Shoes Ltd
Company issued new shares. To ensure continuity of management, was decided to double voting rights on shares owned by managers so that they retained same degree of control. Resolution was challenged....
Re Holders’ Investment Trusts
Trustees held majority of preference shares in a company, and all of the ordinary shares. Proposed to convert preference shares into loan stock (leading to a reduction in capital). Was clear that whe...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.