Company’s articles provided that any reduction in capital would be a variation in class rights of the preference shares.
Defendant claimed that consent of class of preference shareholders was not required as a ‘reduction’ for purposes of articles did not include ‘cancellation’.
‘Reduction’ did include a ‘cancellation’
Therefore consent of class of non-preference shareholders was required
This even though in event company had not made specific provision, consent of class would not have been required.