Vinelott J said: ‘There is . . one matter that has given me considerable concern. At a meeting of the board of directors of the company . . it was resolved to instruct solicitors to act on behalf of the company. In reliance on that resolution solicitors retained by the company have incurred considerable expense in filing evidence and instructing counsel to oppose this application. I can see no possible justification for this course. The directors no doubt have very strong feelings as to the person they would like to see in control of the company and able to appoint and remove its directors including themselves. But they are not entitled at the expense of the company to take part in a dispute as to whether Mr Kenyon’s shares should be compulsorily acquired by Mr Mitchell or by the company.’
Judges:
Vinelott J
Citations:
[1987] BCLC 514
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.378394
