The ‘legitimate expectations’ of a party were a label for the ‘correlative right’ to which a relationship between company members may give rise when, on equitable principles, it would be regarded as unfair for a majority to exercise a power conferred upon them by the articles to the prejudice of another member. Depriving a shareholder of his legitimate expectation of involvement in the company can be sufficient to amount to unfair conduct prejudicial to the shareholder. Conduct might be technically unlawful without being unfair and also unfair without being technically unlawful.
Neill LJ said: ‘For the purpose of determining the legal rights of the petitioner one turns to the memorandum and articles of the company because the articles constitute the contract between the company and the member in respect of his rights and liabilities as a shareholder. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that the management of a company is entrusted to the directors, who have to exercise their powers in the interests of the company as a whole. A shareholder can legitimately complain, however, if the directors exceed the powers vested in them or exercise their powers for some illegitimate or ulterior purpose.’ and
‘The [relevant] conduct must be both prejudicial (in the sense of causing prejudice or harm to the relevant interest) and also unfairly so: conduct may be unfair without being prejudicial or prejudicial without being unfair, and it is not sufficient if the conduct satisfies only one of these tests . . On the facts of this case, the court decided that the petitioners did not show that they had suffered any unfair prejudice by reason of the breaches of duty by the directors. In the same vein, the presence or absence of loss is a significant factor to be taken into account in relation to the alleged breaches of the Agreement.’
Hofmann LJ said: ”Unfairly prejudicial’ is deliberately imprecise language which was chosen by Parliament because its earlier attempt in s 210 of the Companies Act 1948 to provide a similar remedy had been too restrictively construed. The earlier section had used the word ‘oppressive’, which the House of Lords in Scottish Co-op Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer [1958] 3 All ER 66, [1959] AC 324, [1958] 3 WLR 404 said meant ‘burdensome, harsh and wrongful’. This gave rise to some uncertainty as to whether ‘wrongful’ required actual illegality or invasion of legal rights. The Jenkins Committee on Company Law, which reported in 1962, thought that it should not. To make this clear, it recommended the use of the term ‘unfairly prejudicial’, which Parliament somewhat tardily adopted in s 75 of the Companies Act 1980. This section is reproduced (with minor amendment) in the present s 459 of the Companies Act 1985.’ It is now further reproduced in section 994.’ and ‘In deciding what is fair or unfair for the purposes of s.459, it is important to have in mind that fairness is being used in the context of a commercial relationship. The articles of association are just what their name implies: the contractual terms which govern the relationship of the shareholders with the company and each other. They determine the powers of the board and the company in general meeting and everyone who becomes a member of a company is taken to have agreed to them. Since keeping promises and honouring agreements is probably the most important element of commercial fairness, the starting point in any case under s.459 will be to ask whether the conduct of which the shareholder complains was in accordance with the articles of association.’
Judges:
Hofmann LJ, Neill LJ
Citations:
[1995] 1 BCLC 14
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Re BSB Holdings Ltd; London Merchant Securities Plc v Chargeurs Sa and Others ChD 2-Aug-1995
Protection of minority shareholders was not to be used to impede the proper management of a company’s affairs. Directors must act in the company’s overall best interests despite prejudice to one class of shareholders.
Arden J said: ‘However, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.183152