When a court ordered the purchase of the shares of a minority shareholder by the majority holder, the shares should normally be valued as at the date of that order. This might cause unfairness in some cases, for example where the company had been restructured, or had been deprived of its business, or the majority shareholder had engaged in prejudicial conduct, and the court could, where appropriate, order a valuation at an earlier date. Nevertheless, that power should be exercised only where severe prejudice could be shown, and in the light of the behaviour of both parties, including the making and rejecting of offers before the hearing.
Schiemann LJ, Walker LJ, Lloyd J
Times 07-Aug-2001, Gazette 26-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1031, [2001] EWCA Civ 1133, [2002] 1 BCLC
Bailii, Bailii
Companies Act 1985 459
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Allmark v Ervel Curt Burnham, Distinct Services Ltd ChD 30-Nov-2005
The petitioner sought for relief from alleged prejudicial conduct by the respondents in the management of the company. . .
Cited – Bonham v Crow and others CA 13-Dec-2001
The petitioner complained of unfair prejudice in the way the company had been operated, and sought an order that his shares be bought out. However the judge found that the net value of the company was negative and the shares worthless. The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.136132
