Unfair Prejudice In United Kingdom Company Law
Unfair prejudice in United Kingdom company law is a statutory form of action that may be brought by aggrieved shareholders against their company. Under the Companies Act 2006 the relevant provision is s 994, the identical successor to s 459 Companies Act 1985. Unfair prejudice actions have generated an enormous body of cases, many of which are called "Re A Company", with only a six-digit number and report citation to distinguish them. They have become a substitute for the more restrictive conditions on a "derivative action", as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. Though not restricted in such a way, unfair prejudice claims are primarily brought in smaller, non public companies. This is the text from the Act.
| “ | s 994 Petition by company member
(1) A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground—
(2) The provisions of this Part apply to a person who is not a member of a company but to whom shares in the company have been transferred or transmitted by operation of law as they apply to a member of a company. (3) In this section, and so far as applicable for the purposes of this section in the other provisions of this Part, “company” means—
|
” |
Four main issues arise out of the interpretation of s.994. First of all, who has a right to complain against whom? Secondly, what specifically does the "company's affairs" mean in s.994(1)(a)? Thirdly, when is something "unfair" and at the same time "prejudicial"? And lastly, when it says "the interests of members", what counts as an "interest" of a "member"? The defining feature of the s.994 action is that it is completely vague. Courts were therefore capable of interpreting the provisions gradually as they felt would be fair. After hearing a case, a court may make "such order as it thinks fit" under s.996. This wide discretion means that previous case law is not as weighty in precedent, as in other areas of law, since each case will be decided on its particular facts.
Read more about Unfair Prejudice In United Kingdom Company Law: History, Right To Complain, Company Affairs, Unfairly Prejudicial, Interests of Members, Court Remedies, Reform Proposals, See Also
Famous quotes containing the words unfair, prejudice, united, kingdom, company and/or law:
“I was so sick and faint, so overcome at the brutality of this fiendish sport, that I hardly heard the shouts of “Bravo! bravo!” and the fanfaronade of trumpets.... I do not know which astonished me the most, the strikingly curious, brilliant coup d’oeil, the dexterity of the men, the intrepidity of the animals, the miserable unfair play, or the pleasure of the spectators.”
—M. E. W. Sherwood (1826–1903)
“Neither years nor books have yet availed to extirpate a prejudice then rooted in me, that a scholar is the favorite of Heaven and earth, the excellency of his country, the happiest of men. His duties lead him directly into the holy ground where other men’s aspirations only point. His successes are occasions of the purest joy to all men. Eyes is he to the blind; feet is he to the lame. His failures, if he is worthy, are inlets to higher advantages.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“God knows that any man who would seek the presidency of the United States is a fool for his pains. The burden is all but intolerable, and the things that I have to do are just as much as the human spirit can carry.”
—Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)
“For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.”
—Bible: New Testament, Matthew 24:7,8.
“Is not disease the rule of existence? There is not a lily pad floating on the river but has been riddled by insects. Almost every shrub and tree has its gall, oftentimes esteemed its chief ornament and hardly to be distinguished from the fruit. If misery loves company, misery has company enough. Now, at midsummer, find me a perfect leaf or fruit.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“The Reverend Samuel Peters ... exaggerated the Blue Laws, but they did include “Capital Lawes” providing a death penalty for any child over sixteen who was found guilty of cursing or striking his natural parents; a death penalty for an incorrigible son; a law forbidding smoking except in a room in a private house; another law declaring smoking illegal except on a journey five miles away from home,...”
—Administration for the State of Con, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)