While a section 75 petition proceeded it is of great importance to preserve the status quo, to hold the ring, to ensure that the assets remained undiluted, undiverted and properly administered; so that, if the court came to the conclusion, as it frequently does, or if the parties reached a sensible decision that one should buy out the other as a matter of compromise, the assets would be capable of specific valuation in much the same state as they had been before the breakdown had taken place. Harman J said: ‘in cases of litigation under section 75 it is most desirable that the position of the company be not altered or disturbed more than is absolutely essential, between the presentation and the hearing of the petition’.
Judges:
Harman J
Citations:
[1985] BCLC 80, [1986] 2 BCC ChD 99
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kohli v Lit and Others ChD 13-Nov-2009
The claimant asserted that the other shareholders had acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to her within the company.
Held: The claimant was allowed to bring in without prejudice correspondence to contradict evidence by the defendant which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.378389
