The claimant, a minority shareholder, had said that the defendant had acted prejudicially in transferring the company’s only substantial asset to another company. The respondent said that since the shares had always been of nil value they could not hae been prejudiced. The claimant appealed a strike out of its claim.
Held: Such a strike out was unprecedented. The court was in no dount that it should not have been struck out. The valuation was a disputed issue of fact: ‘Factual disputes (including those involving big property companies and world experts on share values) are normally resolved in an adversarial system by a trial after pleadings, discovery and oral evidence tested by cross examination. ‘ There were two sets of conflicting valuations; either might be correct.
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Civ 1956
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lawrence v Lord Norreys HL 1890
The plaintiff brought an action for recovery of possession of an estate, relying on events which had occurred 70 years earlier. The plaintiff had already brought a case which was dismissed on the grounds that it was statute-barred. The plaintiff . .
Cited – Wenlock v Moloney CA 1965
The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy to deprive him of his shares and interest in a company. Each side filed affidavit evidence raising issues of fact. With no oral evidence or cross examination on the affidavits, the Master, after a four day hearing, . .
Cited – In re Saul Harrison and Sons PLC CA 1994
The plaintiffs claimed that the directors had either exceeded their powers or had exercised their powers for some illegitimate or ulterior purpose.
Held: Where the claim of unfairness was not reasonably arguable, the court could exercise its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145435