The High Court and Minority Shareholders

V. Mitchell
{"title":"The High Court and Minority Shareholders","authors":"V. Mitchell","doi":"10.53300/001C.5275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"extract] The judgments have largely reinstated the views underlying the three traditional British cases in this area, namely, Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co, Dafen Tinplate Co v Llanelly Steel Co and Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co. These cases stand for the principle that it is not permissible, in the absence of a specific statutory power, for the majority to alter the articles so that it can, simply for its own benefit, eliminate the minority. This short article examines the legal and intellectual bases for the judgments and concludes there is both a proper purpose test and a concept of fairness which are being appealed to by the High Court. A number of issues are referred to briefly, including the High Court's treatment of views on shares as an item of property, their view on section 180(3) of the Corporations Law and some possible implications for the future.","PeriodicalId":165934,"journal":{"name":"The Bond Law Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.5275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

extract] The judgments have largely reinstated the views underlying the three traditional British cases in this area, namely, Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co, Dafen Tinplate Co v Llanelly Steel Co and Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co. These cases stand for the principle that it is not permissible, in the absence of a specific statutory power, for the majority to alter the articles so that it can, simply for its own benefit, eliminate the minority. This short article examines the legal and intellectual bases for the judgments and concludes there is both a proper purpose test and a concept of fairness which are being appealed to by the High Court. A number of issues are referred to briefly, including the High Court's treatment of views on shares as an item of property, their view on section 180(3) of the Corporations Law and some possible implications for the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高等法院和少数股东
这些判决在很大程度上恢复了英国在这一领域的三个传统案件的观点,即布朗诉英国砂轮公司,大芬马铁公司诉Llanelly钢铁公司和Sidebottom诉Kershaw, Leese & Co.。这些案件代表了一个原则,即在没有特定法定权力的情况下,多数人修改条款,以便仅仅为了自己的利益而消除少数人是不允许的。这篇简短的文章考察了判决的法律和知识基础,并得出结论,高等法院正在上诉的既有适当目的测试,也有公平概念。书中简要提及了若干问题,包括高等法院对将股份视为一项财产的看法、高等法院对《公司法》第180(3)条的看法以及对未来可能产生的一些影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Principle and Policy in Malicious Prosecution Stigma, Stigmata: Reforming the Sex Discrimination Act to Account for Menstruation as a Protected Characteristic A Conspiracy of Paper? William Paterson and the Mysterious Origins of Banking and Company Law Unpacking Post-Employment Restraint of Trade Decisions: The Motivators of the Key Players The ghost of rankings past - The lasting harmful impact of journal rankings, and what we should do instead
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1