Re a Company [1987] 1 BCLC 82
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:12:50 UTC
Hoffmann J
Where director allots shares solely for purpose of destroying a majority, the main basis of action is the wrong to shareholders, and not the wrong to company
This because members’ individual rights under articles have been infringed.
Thus members have personal right of action.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Pender v Lushington
Chairman of a meeting of shareholders wrongfully refused to recognise votes of nominee shareholders. This refusal infringed the personal rights of nominee shareholders. Thus could bring personal acti...
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...
Macdougall v Gardiner
Chairman of a meeting of shareholders wrongfully (i.e. in breach of articles) refused to call a poll when one was requested by a shareholder (Claimant). Shareholder sued. Refusal did not infringe per...
Towcester Racecourse v Racecourse Association
Claimant argued that it was implied term of articles of association that any inquiry into a member would be proper, efficacious and open to its members; and that therefore directors could be directly...
Giles v Rhind
Defendant, a director, diverted company’s most lucrative contract away from company in breach of duty. As result of loss of this contract, company went into receivership and did not have enough money...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.