| John Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd v Shaw | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | John Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd v Peter Shaw and John Shaw |
| Decided | 1 March 1935 |
| Citation(s) | [1935] 2 KB 113 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Greer LJ Roche LJ Slesser LJ |
John Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd v Shaw [1935] 2 KB 113 is a UK company law case, concerning the proper interpretation of a company's articles of association.
Peter, John and Percy Shaw had a company together. They had an argument over owing the company money, and the result was a settlement. Peter and John would resign as governing directors, promised they would not take part in financial affairs, and independent directors would be appointed and given control over the company's financial affairs. When the independent directors required John and Peter to pay money to the company, John and Peter refused. The independent directors resolved to bring a claim against them. Just before the hearing, an extraordinary general meeting was called, where as the majority shareholders Peter and John procured a resolution to discontinue the litigation. The company, and Percy, contended the resolution was ineffective.
At first instance Du Parcq J disregarded the resolution and gave judgment for the company. John appealed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judge, so that the shareholders could not circumvent the company's constitution and order the directors to discontinue litigation. Greer LJ said the following. [1]
I am therefore of opinion that the learned judge was right in refusing to dismiss the action on the plea that it was commenced without the authority of the plaintiff company. I think the judge was also right in refusing to give effect to the resolution of the meeting of the shareholders requiring the chairman to instruct the company's solicitors not to proceed further with the action. A company is an entity distinct alike from its shareholders and its directors. Some of its powers may, according to its articles, be exercised by directors, certain other powers may be reserved for the shareholders in general meeting. If powers of management are vested in the directors, they and they alone can exercise these powers. The only way in which the general body of the shareholders can control the exercise of the powers vested by the articles in the directors is by altering their articles, or, if opportunity arises under the articles, by refusing to re-elect the directors of whose actions they disapprove. They cannot themselves usurp the powers which by the articles are vested in the directors any more than the directors can usurp the powers vested by the articles in the general body of shareholders. The law on this subject is, I think, accurately stated in Buckley on Companies as the effect of the decisions there mentioned: see 11th ed., p. 723. For these reasons I am of opinion that the Court ought not to dismiss the action on the ground that it was instituted and carried on without the authority of the plaintiff company.
Roche LJ and Slesser LJ agreed, although for slightly differing reasons.
A board of directors is an executive committee that supervises the activities of a business, a nonprofit organization, or a government agency.
The Delaware Court of Chancery is a court of equity in the U.S. state of Delaware. It is one of Delaware's three constitutional courts, along with the Supreme Court and Superior Court. Since 2018, the court consists of seven judges. The court is known for being a hub for corporate governance litigation in the United States, as two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware. It is among the preeminent business courts in the world.
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company, the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the proper plaintiff rule", and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the "derivative action", which allows a minority shareholder to bring a claim on behalf of the company. This applies in situations of "wrongdoer control" and is, in reality, the only true exception to the rule. The rule in Foss v Harbottle is best seen as the starting point for minority shareholder remedies.
The Companies Act 2006 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which forms the primary source of UK company law.
Hutton v West Cork Railway Co (1883) 23 Ch D 654 is a UK company law case, which concerns the limits of a director's discretion to spend company funds for the benefit of non-shareholders. It was decided in relation to employees in the context of a company's insolvency proceedings.
The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v The Rank Organisation Ltd. [1985] BCLC 11 is a UK company law case dealing with "oppression" under section 20 Companies Act 1948. Goulding J delivered the first instance judgment.
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 is a United Kingdom company law case on the rights of minority shareholders. The case was decided in the House of Lords.
United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.
Pender v Lushington (1877) 6 Ch D 70 is a leading case in UK company law, which confirms that a company member's right to vote may not be interfered with, because it is a right of property. Furthermore, any interference leads to a personal right of a member to sue in his own name to enforce his right. As Lord Jessel MR put it, a member:
has a right to say, "Whether I vote in the majority or minority, you shall record my vote, as that is a right of property belonging to my interest in this company, and if you refuse to record my vote I will institute legal proceedings against you to compel you."
Barron v Potter [1914] 1 Ch 895 is a UK company law case, concerning the balance of power between the board of directors and the general meeting. It stands for the principle that when the board is incapable of taking action, power to conduct the company's affairs will revert to the general meeting.
Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd [1900] 1 Ch 656 is a UK company law case concerning alteration of a company's articles of association. It held that alterations could not be interfered with by the court unless the change that had been made was not bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole. This rule served as a marginal form of minority shareholder protection at common law, before the existence of any unfair prejudice remedy.
Butt v Kelson [1952] Ch 197 is a UK company law and English trusts law case concerning the right of a beneficiary to direct its trustees to exercise votes on company shares that the trust possesses.
Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter Syndicate Co Ltd v Cuninghame [1906] 2 Ch 34 is a UK company law case, which concerns the enforceability of provisions in a company's constitution.
Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064 is a UK labour law and UK company law case about the internal organisation of a trade union, or a company, and litigation by members to make an executive follow the organisation's internal rules.
Isle of Wight Railway Company v Tahourdin (1884) LR 25 Ch D 320 is a UK company law case on removing directors under the old Companies Clauses Act 1845. In the modern Companies Act 2006, section 168 allows shareholders to remove of directors by a majority vote on reasonable notice, regardless of what the company constitution says. Before 1945, removal of directors depended on the constitution, however this case contains some useful guidance on how to properly construe the provisions of a constitution.
Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258 is a leading United Kingdom company law case relating to directors' liability. The case is the principal authority for the proposition that a company cannot make any claim against a director for breach of duty if the acts of the director have been ratified by the members of the company.
Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc[2015] UKSC 71 was a decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to the exercise of directors' powers for a proper purpose under English company law.
Citco Banking Corporation NV v Pusser's Ltd[2007] UKPC 13 is a judicial decision of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands in relation to the validity of amendments to the memorandum and articles of association of a company, and the requirement of shareholders to exercise the votes attached to their shares in the best interests of the company as a whole.
McDonald v Horn [1995] 1 All ER 961 is an English trusts law case on pensions, relevant for UK labour law. It enables the beneficiaries of a pension fund to be indemnified for costs in bringing actions for breach of trust, fiduciary duty or the duty of care against the trustees or directors of a pension fund.