Hawkes v Cuddy and Others: CA 2 Apr 2009

Stanley Burnton LJ rejected the suggestion that on a petition under s. 994 the court cannot award relief that the petitioner does not seek. He commented: ‘In the present case, the correctness or otherwise of that proposition is academic, since ultimately, when it was apparent from the judge’s judgment that Mr Hawkes would not be able to buy out Mr Cuddy, he agreed to the order proposed by the judge being made on his petition. On any basis, therefore, the judge had power to make the order he did. But I would not want it to be assumed that that proposition represents the law. The terms of section 996 are clear: once the court is satisfied that a petition is well founded, ‘it may make such order as it thinks fit’, not ‘such order as is sought by the petitioner’.’ Stanley Burnton LJ went on to conclude that: ‘The unacceptability to the petitioner of the relief that the court otherwise considers appropriate is doubtless a major consideration to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant that relief, but it goes to the exercise of the discretion of the court, not to the power of the court to make such order as it thinks fit.’
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton
[2009] EWCA Civ 291, [2009] 2 BCLC 427
Companies Act 2006 994
England and Wales
Appeal fromHawkes v Cuddy and others ChD 13-Dec-2007
The court found that the petitioner had been unfairly prejudiced; but it granted the relief sought by the respondent. The court may exercise its own creativity in matching its remedy to the unfair prejudice which has been established. . .

Cited by:
CitedMacom Gmbh v Bozeat and Others ChD 21-Jun-2021
Order regulating company’s affairs
COMPANY – Unfair prejudice – Petitioner 60% shareholder – Respondents 40% shareholders – Alleged breaches of director’s duties and failures to observe Shareholders’ Agreement – Undermining company’s corporate governance – Appropriate remedy – . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.329539