Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the majority shareholders and the company from removing a minority shareholder as a director pending trial of oppression proceedings. The court determined that, although members generally have a statutory right to remove a director, there was credible evidence that the company may be a quasi-partnership in which the applicant had a legitimate expectation to participate in management. The court held that damages would not be an adequate remedy given the risk of irreparable harm to the applicant’s position and rights within the company. The injunction preserves the applicant’s ability to participate in board meetings and access information until the underlying oppression claim is determined, but the court made clear that this relief is exceptional and will be revisited at trial depending on the outcome concerning the quasi-partnership argument.
oppression proceedings – minority shareholder – interlocutory injunction – removal of director – quasi-partnership – shareholder rights – board meetings – company law – damages as remedy – Companies Act 2014 – section 212 Companies Act 2014 – section 146 Companies Act 2014 – balance of justice – corporate governance – access to company information
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.