The claimants had begun proceedings claiming unfair prejudice by the defendants in the management of the business. The defendants sought to have the petition struck out saying that the claimants had used falsified documents to base their petition. At one hearing the court had found such behaviour, but had declined to strike out the petition.
Held: The court found that the dishonesty of the claimant had extended beyond what he admitted. The papers submitted were not merely fraudulent attempts to recreate lost documents but were in fact entirely false, and it was difficult for the court to trust much of the documentation on which the petition was based.
Judges:
Evans-Lombe J
Citations:
[2000] EWHC Ch 177
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD 2-Nov-1999
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
See Also – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
Cited – In re H R Harmer Ltd CA 1958
Shareholders who receive their shares as a gift but afterwards work in the business may become entitled to enforce equitable restraints upon the conduct of the majority shareholder. To succeed the applicant must show some detriment in their capacity . .
Cited – O’Neill and Another v Phillips and Others; In re a Company (No 00709 of 1992) HL 20-May-1999
The House considered a petition by a holder of 25 of the 100 issued shares in the company against the majority shareholder. The petitioner, an ex-employee, had been taken into management and then given his shares and permitted to take 50% of the . .
Cited – In re Brenfield Squash Rackets Ltd ChD 1996
The court heard an application by a minority shareholder for an order for the sale of the interest of the majority shareholder to him. Rattee J said: ‘It may be comparatively unusual for a majority shareholder of the company to be ordered to sell . .
Cited by:
See also – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD 2-Nov-1999
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
Appeal From – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
See Also – Arrow Nominees Inc and others v Blackledge and others CA 28-Feb-2002
. .
See Also – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and others CA 13-Jul-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162984