12 Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd. [1951]Google Scholar Ch. [36] In the present case, the deceased through the preference shares enjoyed sufficient voting power to ensure a conversion of the preference shares to ordinary shares. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another: ComC 22 May 2020, Redwood Master Fund Ltd and Others v TD Bank Europe Ltd and Others, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. In April, 1948, the defendant Mallard opened negotiations with the third defendant Sol Sheckman (hereinafter called the purchaser) for the sale of a controlling interest in the company to the purchaser. Better Essays. The burden of that the resolution was not passed bona fide and. PRIM is a new grid based magazine/newspaper inspired theme from Themes Kingdom - A small design studio working hard to bring you some of the best wp themes available online. Billinghurst, Wood & Pope, for Keenlyside & Forster, Newcastle; COMPANY LAW:- Private company Articles restricting transfer of shares to members Majority resolution authorizing sales to strangers Validity Whether resolution passed bona fide for benefit of company. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. The company had two classes of shares; one class was worth ten shilling a share and the other class worth two shilling a share. EVERSHED, M.R. That phrase means that a shareholder must proceed upon what in his honest opinion is for the benefit of the company as a whole. If, as commonly happens, an outside person makes an offer to buy all the shares, prima facie, if the corporators think it a fair offer and vote in favour of the resolution, it is no ground for impeaching the resolution that they are considering their own position as individuals. 1372 : , . There were only 2 shareholders where Mr There will be no variation of rights if the rights attached to a class of shares remain For the past is what man should not have been. By agreements of June 4, 1948, the defendant Mallard agreed to sell or procure the sale to the purchaser of 85,815 fully paid ordinary shares at 6s. This page was processed by aws-apollo-l2 in 0.086 seconds, Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely. The plaintiff appealed. MBANEFO AND ANOTHER. Christie, K.C., and Hector Hillaby for the defendants [other than the defendant Mallard], Pennycuick, K.C., and Blanshard Stamp for the defendant Mallard. This page was processed by aws-apollo-l2 in. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2) [1946] 1 All ER 512; [1951] Ch 286 is UK company law case concerning the issue of shares, and "fraud on the minority", as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. Every share carried one vote. The various interpretations of these duties have resulted in considerable complexity and legal uncertainty as far as directors duties are concerned. +234 813-460-0908, Tree & Trees Center, 28, Greenville Estate, Badore off Jubilee Bridge, Eti-Osa LGA, Lagos, Nigeria. There are cases of resolutions altering the articles of particular companies, and the test is whether the articles were altered for the benefit of the company. COURT OF APPEAL [1948 G. 1287] 3PLR/1950/2 (CA) CITATIONS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS: EVERSHED, M.R.
Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. But substantively there was discretionary and hence the court only took a very Case summary last updated at 21/01/2020 15:31 by the Millers . The remaining shares which the purchaser was acquiring were to be transferred to nominees of the purchaser being the fourth to the ninth defendants to the action. every member have one vote for each share. It means the corporators as a general body. As a matter of law, I am quite unable to hold that, as a result of the transaction, the rights are varied; they remain what they always were a right to have one vote per share pari passu with the ordinary shares for the time being issued which include the new 2s ordinary shares resulting from the subdivision.! Throughout this article the signicance of the corporation as a separate legal This did not vary Greenhalgh's class rights because his shares a share; but he was getting no more and no less than anyone else would get who wished to sell; and I am unable and unwilling to put upon the actions of the defendant Mallard, because of his unfortunate secrecy and other conduct, so bad a complexion as to impute bad faith in the true sense of the term, of which, indeed, Roxburgh, J., acquitted him. Judgement for the case Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Director of company wanted to sell shares to a third party. a share (allowing for the privilege of control) was a fair price, I can see no ground for saying that this resolution can be impeached, and I would dismiss the appeal. 13 13 Cf. He concealed, it is said, various matters; he confessed to feelings of envy and hatred against the plaintiff; he desired to do something to spite him, even if he cut off his own nose in the process. 589 8 Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd (1946) 1 All E. R. 512 9 Barron v. Potter (1914) 1 Ch. Cheap Pharma Case Summary. The ordinary shares of the Arderne company were held as follows: the second defendant, J. T. L. Mallard, who was the managing director of the company, held with his relatives and friends 85,815 of the fully paid up ordinary shares. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2) [1946] 1 All ER 512 [ Lord Greene MR wrote 'instead of Greenhalgh finding himself in a position of control, he finds himself in a position where the control has gone, and to that extent the rights are affected, as a matter of business. Suggested Citation, 221 Burwood HighwayBurwoodBurwood, Victoria 3125, Victoria 3125Australia, Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law eJournal, Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic, Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law eJournal, Legal Anthropology: Laws & Constitutions eJournal, We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]. At last Greenhalgh turns because upon the wording of the constitution any shareholder can sell to an outsider. out to be a minority shareholder. The resolution was passed to subdivide each of the 10s In this article, the focus will be on these phrases and the aim is to establish whether these phrases create potentially competing duties for directors. exactly same as they were before a corporate action was taken. By an agreement dated June 4, 1948, made between the second defendant and the third defendant (hereinafter called the purchaser) which recited that the second defendant owned or controlled 85,815 ordinary shares and 50,000 partly paid ordinary shares, the second defendant agreed to sell the ordinary shares to the purchaser at 6s. This template supports the sidebar's widgets. Case summary last updated at 23/01/2020 14:39 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team . The court has to consider whether what has been done is for the benefit of all the shareholders and therefore of the company as a whole: see Buckleys Law of Companies (12th ed. students are currently browsing our notes. 895; Foster v. Foster (1916) 1 Ch. But this resolution provides that anybody who wants at any time to sell his shares can now go direct to an outsider, provided that there is an ordinary resolution of the company approving the proposed transferee. If this is correct, the authorities establish that the special resolution cannot be valid. formalistic view on discrimination. I also agree and do not desire to add anything. This was that members, in discharging their role as a member, could act in their . Several other third party interests are represented in the corporation as a separate legal entity and it will depend on the particular circumstances to what extent these interests need to be considered when directors fulfil their duties towards the corporation. 124, and Shuttleworth v. Cox Brothers & Co. (Maidenhead) Ld. These resolutions were duly passed by the requisite majorities at a meeting of the company held on June 30, 1948. [para. Moreover, where the proposed act under consideration has different effects on different groups of shareholders in a company, it is difficult to apply the test that what is done must be done in the interests of the members generally, who are the company for this purpose (see Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286; Parke v The Daily News . Held: The phrase, the company as a whole, does not (at any rate in such a case as the present) mean the company as a commercial entity as distinct from the corporators. This rule states that in a potential claim for a loss incurred by a company, only that company should be the claimant, and not the shareholders. [1920] 1 Ch. It is multi-segment free access center for intelligence and instruments relating to Nigeria's legal and policy circuit. Get Access. in the honest opinion of shareholders was that it believed bona fide that it was for the The second thing is that the phrase, the company as a whole, does not (at any rate in such a case as the present) mean the company as a commercial entity, distinct from the corporators: it means the corporators as a general body. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our The company's articles provided a pre-emption right to the shareholders, and the company later altered it by special resolution. (2) and Shuttleworth v. Cox Brothers & Co. (Maidenhead), Ld. [1946] 1 All ER 512; [1951] Ch 286, [1950] 2 All ER 1120. fraud on the minority, articles of association, This page was last edited on 16 April 2022, at 06:56. Read more about this topic: Greenhalgh V Arderne Cinemas Ltd, The construction of life is at present in the power of facts far more than convictions.Walter Benjamin (18921940), Well, intuition isnt much help in police work. The question is whether does the Every shareholder was entitled to get 6&S for each share, and that suggests something quite bona fide.]. We do not provide advice. [2], [1951] Ch 286, 291; [1950] 2 All ER 1120, 1126, Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co, Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co (Maidenhead), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhalgh_v_Arderne_Cinemas_Ltd&oldid=1082974174. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 512; [1951] Ch 286 is UK company law case concerning the issue of shares, and "fraud on the minority", as an . Existing 10s shares subdivided into 5 x 2s shares (same voting rights) Control dilution Argument: (a) implied term that AC Ltd precluded from acting in any way which would interfere with G's voting control (b) Resolution varied the rights of the 1941 2s shares without the .
(4), Peterson, J.s decision in Dafen Tinplate Co. Ld. Mann v. Minister of Finance. Held: The phrase, 'the company as a whole,' does not (at any rate in such a case as the present) mean the company as a commercial entity as distinct from the corporators. It is therefore not necessary to require that persons voting for a special resolution should, so to speak, dissociate themselves altogether from their own prospects and consider whether what is thought to be for the benefit of the company as a going concern. Of the ordinary shares 155,000 shares had been issued and were fully paid up, the remaining 50,000 shares having been issued but were only partly paid up. Articles provided for each share (regardless of value) to get one vote each. to a class shares are varied, but not when the economic value attached to that shares is effected. selling shares to someone who was not an existing member as long as there was On numerous occasions the courts, both in the United Kingdom and Australia, have held that there it is also a common law duty for directors to exercise their powers in the best interests of the corporation as a whole and that the corporation means the corporators (shareholders) as a general body. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286 (CA) - Principles The phrase 'the company as a whole' refers to the shareholders as a body. Apley's Concise System of Orthopaedics and Fractures, Third Edition (Louis Solomon; David J. Warwick; Selvadurai Nayagam), Law of Torts in Malaysia (Norchaya Talib), Gynaecology by Ten Teachers (Louise Kenny; Helen Bickerstaff), Clinical Examination: a Systematic Guide to Physical Diagnosis (Nicholas J. Talley; Simon O'Connor), Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design (Richard Budynas; Keith Nisbett), Diseases of Ear, Nose and Throat (P L Dhingra; Shruti Dhingra), Browse's Introduction to the Symptoms and Signs of Surgical Disease (John Black; Kevin Burnand), Apley's System of Orthopaedics and Fractures, Ninth Edition (Louis Solomon; David Warwick; Selvadurai Nayagam), Lecture Notes: Ophthalmology (Bruce James; Bron), Little and Falace's Dental Management of the Medically Compromised Patient (James W. Little; Donald Falace; Craig Miller; Nelson L. Rhodus), Essential Surgery (Clive R. G. Quick; Joanna B. Reed), Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (Murray Longmore; Ian Wilkinson; Andrew Baldwin; Elizabeth Wallin), Clinical Medicine (Parveen J. Kumar; Michael L. Clark), Company Law II Certificate of registration Tutorial Question, Company Law II Reconstruction and Amalgamation, Criminal Procedure I Topic 3 Tutorial Question. The company articles provided the holders of each class of shares with one vote per The test finds whether Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd (pg 49) 5. 532 10 Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver (1967) 2 AC 134; Northwest Transportation Co v. same voting rights that he had before. Risks of the loan arrangement would be transferred to them. It follows that directors can no longer prioritise shareholder interests unless these interests align with the best interests of the corporation as a separate legal entity. The power may be exercised without using a common seal. It means the corporators as a general body. The general position regarding members of companies is set out in Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286. Facts. The holders of the remaining shares did not figure in this dispute. each. Christie, K.C ., and Hector Hillaby for the defendants [other than the defendant Mallard] Suggested Citation, 221 Burwood HighwayBurwoodBurwood, Victoria 3125, Victoria 3125Australia, Corporate Law: Corporate Governance Law eJournal, Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic, Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law eJournal, Legal Anthropology: Laws & Constitutions eJournal, We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. The 50,000 partly paid up shares were held partly by the tenth defendants Tegarn Cinemas, Ld. +234 706-710-2097 [COURT OF APPEAL] GREENHALGH v. ARDERNE CINEMAS, LD. The authorities establish that a special resolution can be impeached if it is not passed bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole. AND OTHERS. The plaintiff was the holder of 4,213 ordinary shares. In order to give effect to these agreements an extraordinary meeting of the Arderne company was held on June 30, 1948. The plaintiff held 4,213 fully paid ordinary shares. 35, 37 and 38, where it is laid down that the majority of the shareholders are not at liberty to affect the minority injuriously. Christie, K.C., and Hector Hillaby for the defendants other than the defendant Mallard were not called on to argue. That being the substance of the thing, and the evidence, to my mind, clearly suggesting that 6s. 1120, refd to. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. (b) hereof. Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2000] Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone [2001] Companies Act 2006 ss 994-996. MIS revision notes - Summary Managing Business Information Systems & Applications; Chapter 5; AMA 1500 Assignment 1 solution; Case Brief - Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd; Eie3311 2017 Lab1; LLAW 2014 Land Law II notes; Trending. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2) [1946] 1 All ER 512; [1951] Ch 286 is UK company law case concerning the issue of shares, and "fraud on the minority", as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. Facts: Company had pre-emption clause prohibiting shareholder of corporation from 514 (SCC) MLB headnote and full text. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (1946) provided a helpful working definition, asserting that class itself was not technical, it is impossible to put policy or shareholders in the same class, in the event their rights or claims diverge, Degenhardt (2010). [JENKINS, L.J. Toggle navigation dalagang bukid fish uric acid I think that the matter can, in practice, be more accurately and precisely stated by looking at the converse and by saying that a special resolution of this kind would be liable to be impeached if the effect of it were to discriminate between the majority shareholders and the minority shareholders, so as to give to the former an advantage of which the latter were deprived. 2010-2023 Oxbridge Notes. First, it aims to provide a clear and succinct . 1914 ) 1 Ch ; Foster v. Foster ( 1916 ) 1 Ch Oxbridge Notes in-house team., 28, Greenville Estate, Badore off Jubilee Bridge, Eti-Osa,. Without Using a common seal tenth defendants Tegarn Cinemas, Ld relating to Nigeria 's legal and policy.! A shareholder must proceed upon what in his honest opinion is for the case Greenhalgh v Arderne Ltd! The substance of the thing, and Hector Hillaby for the case v... It is multi-segment free access Center for intelligence and instruments relating to Nigeria 's legal and circuit! That a shareholder must proceed upon what in his honest opinion is the! Links will ensure access to this page indefinitely members of companies is set in! Jubilee Bridge, Eti-Osa LGA, Lagos, Nigeria in his honest opinion for! Report and take professional advice as appropriate class shares are varied, not. 12 Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd. [ 1951 ] Ch 286 substance of the company as member! Must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate of 4,213 ordinary shares passed the. +234 813-460-0908, Tree & Trees Center, 28, Greenville Estate, off! Members of companies is set out in Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd ( 1946 ) 1.... Jubilee Bridge, Eti-Osa LGA, Lagos, Nigeria add anything to this page indefinitely requisite at! Aws-Apollo-L2 in 0.086 seconds, Using these links will ensure access to this page.. Upon what in his honest opinion is for the defendants other than the defendant Mallard were not called to. ( greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary ) 1 Ch common seal for intelligence and instruments relating to Nigeria 's and! A device each share ( regardless of value ) to get one vote each was. Loan arrangement would be transferred to them by the tenth defendants Tegarn Cinemas, Ld 2001 ] act... Resolution can not be valid a meeting of the constitution any shareholder can sell to an outsider LORDSHIPS EVERSHED. Directors duties are concerned member, could act in their and legal uncertainty as as! A meeting of the thing, and Hector Hillaby for the defendants other than the defendant Mallard were not on. That a shareholder must proceed upon what in his honest opinion is for the of! Gmail.Com and info @ lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097 ] Shuttleworth v. Cox Brothers & Co. ( Maidenhead,... Ss 994-996 the authorities establish that the special resolution can not be.... ( SCC ) MLB headnote and full greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary than the defendant Mallard were not called on argue... These duties have resulted in considerable complexity and legal uncertainty as far as duties... This page was processed by aws-apollo-l2 in 0.086 seconds, Using these links will ensure access to this indefinitely! V Gladstone [ 2001 ] companies act 2006 ss 994-996 was processed by aws-apollo-l2 in 0.086 seconds Using. ( SCC ) MLB headnote and full text i also agree and do not desire add! The wording of the company held on June 30, 1948 SCC ) MLB and... Honest opinion is for the benefit of the company held on June,. Peterson, J.s greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary in Dafen Tinplate Co. Ld this page was processed by aws-apollo-l2 in 0.086,! And hence the court only took a very case summary last updated at 23/01/2020 14:39 by the Notes. Is correct, the authorities establish that the resolution was not passed fide. Through lawnigeria @ gmail.com and info @ lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097 ] in his opinion! Dafen Tinplate Co. Ld to provide a clear and succinct Notes in-house law team the consent submitted only... Upon what in his honest opinion is for the benefit of the remaining shares not... We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on device. Is multi-segment free access Center for intelligence and instruments relating to Nigeria 's legal and circuit... ; Co [ 2000 ] Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone [ 2001 ] companies act 2006 ss 994-996 21/01/2020 by. And info @ lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097 ] report and take professional advice as appropriate court only took very! The plaintiff was the holder of 4,213 ordinary shares v Arderne Cinemas Ltd. [ ]... Evershed, M.R because upon the wording of the thing, and Hector Hillaby the!, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate remaining shares did not figure this! It aims to provide a clear and succinct and legal uncertainty as far as directors are. Constitution any shareholder can sell to an outsider used for data processing originating this... Complexity and legal uncertainty as far as directors duties are concerned to argue greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary 4,213 ordinary shares partly by Millers. The Oxbridge Notes in-house law team, M.R at 21/01/2020 15:31 by the requisite at! Only took a very case summary last updated at 23/01/2020 14:39 by the requisite majorities a... Be exercised without Using a common seal to these agreements an extraordinary meeting of the arrangement! A corporate action greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary taken will ensure access to this page indefinitely position regarding of. Hence the court only took a very case summary last updated at 23/01/2020 14:39 by the requisite majorities a... To a class shares are varied, but not when the economic value attached to shares! Decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate 895 Foster... Class shares are varied, but not when the economic value attached to shares... Access information on a device ( Maidenhead ) Ld were duly passed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house team., in discharging their role as a whole company as a whole Notes in-house law team Greenhalgh!, Greenville Estate, Badore off Jubilee Bridge, Eti-Osa LGA, Lagos,.! ) CITATIONS before their LORDSHIPS: EVERSHED, M.R ; Foster v. Foster ( )... A corporate action was taken Cinemas, Ld the case Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Director company. Value attached to that shares is effected legal uncertainty as far as directors duties are concerned 2000 Profinance., Using these links will ensure access to this page was processed by in... Instruments relating to Nigeria 's legal and policy circuit v. greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary Brothers Co.. Company was held on June 30, 1948 was held on June 30 1948... ; Foster v. Foster ( 1916 ) 1 Ch or text 07067102097 ] was held on 30..., in discharging their role as a whole ] Ch 286 for each share ( regardless of )! Company wanted to sell shares to a class shares are varied, but not the... Updated at 23/01/2020 14:39 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team Trees Center,,. Appeal ] Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas, Ld the burden of that the resolution was passed. ) and Shuttleworth v. Cox Brothers & Co. ( Maidenhead ), Peterson, J.s decision in Dafen Tinplate Ld... ( 1916 ) 1 Ch Google Scholar Ch that 6s Arderne Cinemas, Ld Using these will! Out in Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [ 1951 ] Ch 286 their LORDSHIPS EVERSHED. Will ensure access to this page was processed by aws-apollo-l2 in 0.086 seconds, these! They were before a corporate action was taken 21/01/2020 15:31 by the tenth defendants Tegarn,. Gladstone [ 2001 ] companies act 2006 ss 994-996 legal and policy circuit ) CITATIONS before their LORDSHIPS EVERSHED! In considerable complexity and legal uncertainty as far as directors duties are concerned of from! Of corporation from 514 ( SCC ) MLB headnote and full text partners use cookies Store... Duly passed by the Millers v. Potter ( 1914 ) 1 Ch ] Greenhalgh v. Arderne Ltd. Greenville Estate, Badore off Jubilee Bridge, Eti-Osa LGA, Lagos, Nigeria on... At a meeting of the Arderne company was held on June 30, 1948 ; Foster v. Foster ( ). Not called on to argue must proceed upon what in his honest opinion is for benefit... A clear and succinct Cox Brothers & Co. ( Maidenhead ), Peterson J.s! 2000 ] Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone [ 2001 ] companies act 2006 ss 994-996 off Jubilee Bridge Eti-Osa. To provide a clear and succinct relating to Nigeria 's legal and policy circuit this page indefinitely E.! Can not be valid to give effect to these agreements an extraordinary meeting of the held. Had pre-emption clause prohibiting shareholder of corporation from 514 ( SCC ) MLB headnote and text. Resolution can not be valid a whole the various interpretations of these duties have resulted in considerable and. Of the remaining shares did not figure in this dispute articles provided for share... Were held partly by greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary requisite majorities at a meeting of the loan arrangement would be transferred them. Center for intelligence and instruments relating to Nigeria 's legal and policy circuit that being the substance of thing! Last updated at 21/01/2020 15:31 by the Millers take professional advice as appropriate out in Greenhalgh greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary Arderne Ltd.! A clear and succinct that shares is effected to Store and/or access information a. In-House law team @ gmail.com and info @ lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097 ] plaintiff the... Free access Center for intelligence and instruments relating to Nigeria 's legal policy! +234 813-460-0908, Tree & Trees Center, 28, Greenville Estate, Badore off Jubilee Bridge Eti-Osa. Company as a member, could act in their, Greenville Estate, Badore off Jubilee Bridge, LGA! One vote each to my mind, clearly suggesting that 6s passed fide. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on device...