注:根据2008年第71号公司法,股东罢免董事的混淆:Miller诉Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd

Q3 Social Sciences South African law journal Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.47348/salj/v139/i4a1
Rehana Cassim
{"title":"注:根据2008年第71号公司法,股东罢免董事的混淆:Miller诉Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd","authors":"Rehana Cassim","doi":"10.47348/salj/v139/i4a1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note critically analyses the judgment in Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 554 (GJ), in which the court ruled on the validity of the removal of a director by the company’s sole shareholder. Three issues were in contention: whether a shareholder must furnish the director with reasons for the proposed resolution to remove a director from office under s 71 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008; whether a shorter notice period for the shareholders’ meeting was legally acceptable; and whether the meeting that was held telephonically was valid. The court ruled that the director’s removal from office was valid and dismissed his request to be reinstated as a director. This note critically analyses the judgment and argues that the court misinterpreted some aspects of s 71 of the Act.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Notes: Confusion in the removal of directors by shareholders under the Companies Act 71 of 2008: Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd\",\"authors\":\"Rehana Cassim\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/salj/v139/i4a1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This note critically analyses the judgment in Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 554 (GJ), in which the court ruled on the validity of the removal of a director by the company’s sole shareholder. Three issues were in contention: whether a shareholder must furnish the director with reasons for the proposed resolution to remove a director from office under s 71 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008; whether a shorter notice period for the shareholders’ meeting was legally acceptable; and whether the meeting that was held telephonically was valid. The court ruled that the director’s removal from office was valid and dismissed his request to be reinstated as a director. This note critically analyses the judgment and argues that the court misinterpreted some aspects of s 71 of the Act.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i4a1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v139/i4a1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文批判性地分析了Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 554 (GJ)一案的判决,在该案中,法院裁定了公司唯一股东罢免董事的有效性。有三个问题存在争议:股东是否必须向董事提供根据2008年《公司法》第71条提出的罢免董事的决议的理由;缩短股东会通知期限是否在法律上可以接受;以及电话会议是否有效。法院裁定该董事的免职是有效的,并驳回了他重新担任董事的请求。本说明批判性地分析了判决,并认为法院误解了该法第71条的某些方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Notes: Confusion in the removal of directors by shareholders under the Companies Act 71 of 2008: Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd
This note critically analyses the judgment in Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 554 (GJ), in which the court ruled on the validity of the removal of a director by the company’s sole shareholder. Three issues were in contention: whether a shareholder must furnish the director with reasons for the proposed resolution to remove a director from office under s 71 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008; whether a shorter notice period for the shareholders’ meeting was legally acceptable; and whether the meeting that was held telephonically was valid. The court ruled that the director’s removal from office was valid and dismissed his request to be reinstated as a director. This note critically analyses the judgment and argues that the court misinterpreted some aspects of s 71 of the Act.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A legislative framework for shareholder approval of political donations and expenditure by companies in South Africa Reflecting on the tension between the development of the common law and the doctrine of separation of powers in Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd Notes: The Krugersdorp gang rapes — Another Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S? Book Review: Tjakie Naudé & Daniel Visser (eds) The Future of the Law of Contract: Essays in Honour of Dale Hutchison (2021) The classification of a ‘maritime claim’ in South Africa under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
×
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