Lee Panavision Ltd v Lee Lighting Ltd: CA 1992

The court considered an allegation of a failure to declare an interest to a company board meeting, met by a defence that the undeclared interest was common to and known by each of the directors.
Held: Dillon LJ said: ‘if the judge was entitled to make findings of non-disclosure and non-declaration of interests that he did, the position is that each of the directors has failed to disclose formally at the board meeting an interest common to all the directors and, ex hypothesi, already known to all the directors. I would hesitate to hold that such apparently technical non-declaration of an interest in breach of s 317 has the inevitable result, as to which the court has no discretion, that the second management agreement is fundamentally flawed and must be set aside if Lee Lighting chooses to ask sufficiently promptly that it be set aside.’

Judges:

Dillon, Stocker LJJ, Sir David Croom-Johnson

Citations:

[1992] BCLC 22

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 317 727

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230302