A participant in the company was given the right to be involved in the management until a change should become necessary for some other reason.
In cases of fraud, direct evidence may be rare and circumstantial evidence may have to suffice,
Lord Templeman said: ‘In civil proceedings the trial judge has no power to dictate to a litigant what evidence he should tender. In winding up proceedings the trial judge cannot refuse to read affidavits which have been properly sworn, filed and produced to him unless some opposing party has applied for the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent and that application has been granted and the deponent does not attend. The court cannot give a direction about evidence unless one of the litigants desires such direction to be made. Of course a judge may indicate to a petitioner that unless he calls oral evidence or applies to cross-examine the deponents of the opposition so as to prove a disputed fact, his petition is likely to fail. The judge may equally indicate to a respondent that unless he calls oral evidence or applies to cross-examine the petitioner’s deponents for the purposes of disproving an allegation made by the petitioner, then the petitioner is likely to succeed. At the end of the day the judge must decide the petition on the evidence before him. If allegations are made in affidavits by the petitioner and those allegations are credibly denied by the respondent’s affidavits, then in the absence of oral evidence or cross-examination, the judge must ignore the disputed allegations. The judge must then decide the fate of the petition by consideration of the undisputed facts.
 1 WLR 413,  BCLC 472
Cited – Re Haden Bill Electrical Ltd 1995
The petitioner had had in practice control of the company as chairman and though he owned only 25% of the shares. His own company loaned andpound;200,000 to the company as working capital. He complained that he had been removed as a director.
Mentioned – In the Matter of Pectel Limited; O’Neill; O’Neill v Phillips; Phillips and Pectel Limited CA 1-May-1997
The petitioners sought either the purchase of their shares, or the winding up of the company alleging unfair prejudice in the management of the company. The defendants argued that what was complained of did not fall within section 459 since it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Commonwealth, Evidence, Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.264074