The court should not generally order rectification of a company’s registers where this would prejudice third party rights. Vaughan Williams LJ said: ‘I do not mean for a moment to suggest that any one is entitled to such an order ex debito justitiae; it is a matter in the discretion of the judge, and there might be cases in which the judge, although he considered such an order essential to completely establishing the rights of the applicant, might refuse to do so because he thought it would work injustice to other members of the company. If I thought here that such an order would work injustice to other persons, especially to persons who are not in any way bound by the mistake of the company, I should feel considerable hesitation in making the order . . ‘
Stirling LJ: ‘I may point out that the power . . is not imperative. All it says is that the Court ‘may’ in a proper case make an order for rectification. Therefore the Court has full discretion to deal with every particular case which comes before it in such a way as may do complete justice . . ‘
Judges:
Vaughan Williams LJ, Stirling LJ
Citations:
[1904] 1 Ch 598
Cited by:
Cited – Smith v Charles Building Services Ltd and Another CA 19-Jan-2006
An application was made for the rectfication of the company’s registers.
Held: The claimant’s name had been improperly removed from the register, and therefore he was prima facie entitled to a rectification. However even if rectified, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.237741
