• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Section 205 of the companies Act 1963 provides a comprehensive remedy for aggrieved shareholders. Critically discuss the above proposition.

Extracts from this document...


Company Law 2: ?Section 205 of the companies Act 1963 provides a comprehensive remedy for aggrieved shareholders.? Critically discuss the above proposition. Introduction: The principle of majority rule is enshrined in company law. While the law recognises that it is the right of the majority shareholder?s to conduct the company?s business in what they see as its best interests, it often happens that a majority may behave in a manner which is damaging to the interests of a minority of members. Therefore, the law has developed protection for the minority under both the common law and through statute provisions[1]. Section 205 of the Companies Act 1963 has become the primary outlet for aggrieved petitioners. It has had significant influence in reducing the total control majority shareholders and director?s initially had at their disposal, and has enabled the minority shareholders with the ability to effect change where they would have been incapable of doing so before. Nonetheless, s 205 is limited in its scope, and its application can be invariably restricted. Prior to the enactment of this provision, shareholder? grievances within a company were governed by the general rule established in Foss v Harbottle[2], which protects companies and their separate legal identity from claims of adverse conduct. This rule ensures that only a company may institute proceedings in respect of wrongs done to it, and it set limits to the right of an individual member of a company to sue upon such an assertion. Under this rule, exceptions allow a minority shareholder to bring a personal, representative or derivative action against a company on the basis of an alleged wrong. Yet due to the nature of this rule and the responsibility of the courts to ensure that the floodgates remain firmly closed, it would seem as though there is a necessity to favour the legal over the natural person[3]. Unless a shareholder could bring himself within one of the exceptions to the rule, his only remedy (prior to the enactment of s 205) ...read more.


Section 205(3) states that where s 205 (1) applies, that the court may ?make such orders as it thinks fit, whether directing or prohibiting any act, or cancelling or varying any transaction??. This indicates that the court may exercise its powers in relation to any act, whether it is an isolated act or a continued course of conduct. This was illustrated in Re Westwinds Holding Company Ltd[19], where Kenny J. held that the sale of land at such a gross undervalue was completed in an oppressive manner, and it was on that ground, and ?that ground alone? sufficient for the exercise of the powers of the court under s 205(3)[20]. Furthermore, in stating that the court must make orders with a ?view to bringing to an end the matters complained of?, s 205(3) suggests that the conduct of the affairs of the company, the exercise of the directors? powers, or the matters complained of, must be on-going up to the date of presenting the petition[21]. It has been held that fraudulent and unlawful transactions can constitute oppressive behaviour, despite the effort to confine s 205 to conduct that is beyond a legal resolution. Again, in Re Westwinds Holding Company Ltd[22], the court found that the applicant shareholder had had his signature forged by the other shareholder who executed the transfer of deeds of company land. This case is encouraging as it resulted in the court ordering the offending shareholder to purchase the applicant shares at a value that they would have been, had the fraudulent transactions not taken place. Consequently, this embodies a precedent for aggrieved members to seek a comprehensive remedy under s 205 where acts of fraud are committed. An important issue which arises under s 205 is the extent to which oppressive management can amount to maltreatment. As aforesaid, there is no limit to the wording of s.205 that oppression can only be suffered by a member in his capacity as member.[23]In Irish Press Plc v Ingersoll Irish Publications Ltd[24], the ...read more.


Nonetheless s.205 is not easily employed, and it consists of several restrictive measures to ensure that there is no abuse of the remedial process, including confining petitions to those which come as a consequence of company affairs and powers of directors. Each of these elements are central to s.205 and give the statute provision its significance, yet there are certain aspects outlined above which preclude s.205 from being a comprehensive remedy. Ambiguity still exists with regard to the availability of s.205 redress where the illicit behaviour transpires as a result of mere incompetence. This can be problematic for an aggrieved shareholder as it is difficult to show malevolence where it does not exist. However, Keane argues that such a loophole might not exist in Ireland as it does under the British jurisdiction, and that where conduct, be it incompetent or deliberate, has serious detrimental consequences for the applicant, such behaviour could be reasonably described as oppressive even where the oppressor genuinely believed what they were doing was right.[41] More specifically, petitions that involve quasi-partnership companies can be difficult to resolve as aforementioned, and s.205 redress can often be ineffective. Liquidation can often result in the sale of the assets at break-up value without regard to goodwill and the know-how of the company members. A winding up by the court can also be lengthy and costly, and it may be that the only available purchasers are the very majority whose oppression had compelled the minority to seek redress.[42]Nevertheless, where a court cannot end the matter in question under s.205, then it is obligated to employ the residual jurisdiction under s213(g) to wind up the company. In conclusion, it cannot be denied that section 205 has been effective in redressing the inequality for parties dealing with companies, however only insofar as is in keeping with pre-existing case law and company law statutes. As a whole, it endeavours to redress all shareholder grievances that develop, however it is overly restricted and perhaps not as important a remedy as it could otherwise be. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Commercial Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Commercial Law essays

  1. Corporations in law. A corporation under Company law or corporate law is specifically ...

    that was attracting the clients - not him. The court lifted the veil and issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the circulars on the grounds that the company was merely a 'front' for Horne. Criticism: There is some criticism of the company as a separate legal entity, those are following: * Ever since the House of

  2. Critical Evaluation of The Companies Act 2006 and its comparison to The Companies Act ...

    The shareholders of a company have the duty to decide on more 'major' issues that a company faces. General meetings are the forum in which shareholders make decisions. There are two types of general meetings; Annual General Meetings (AGMs) and Extraordinary General Meetings (EGMs).

  1. Company law - directors duties

    However chuah, J (2005) believes that the new regime does require certain significant adjustment to current practice and it is important to consider the wider and more policy-orientated approach to the evaluation of director's duties. Word Count: 2198 Bibliography Cases Aberdeen Railway Co-v- Blaikie Bros (1854)

  2. sale of goods act 1979

    to treat the case as if it were governed by the provisions relating to the implied terms created by s.14 of the Sale Of Goods Act 1979, specifically by the definition of the words merchantable quality as found in s.14 (6)

  1. Coporate Law and Limited Liability. There are certain circumstances in which courts will have ...

    example, X Ltd and if things go wrong, the assets of A Ltd as a shareholder of X Ltd cannot be seized or sold to pay the unpaid creditors. Many consider this unfair and so in certain cases, the courts will 'lift the veil of incorporation' between the company and its members, thus treating both as one single entity.

  2. law and Morality relationship.

    The legal system assumes a certain amount of morality , because if law is not inevitably moral then there is no easy explanation of the obligation to obey, both moral and legal rules have some common traits, 5they share a general (though not necessarily)

  1. The key to section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is interpretation.

    In the Varley v Whipp[10] the court held that in order for condition under section 13(1A)[11] to apply the goods must be sold by description and not to be seen by the purchaser. The Court held that the concept of section 13[12] should apply to all cases where the purchaser

  2. Veil of Incorporation. Under the Companies Act 2006[1], the effect of registering a ...

    He formed a company which he then sold the property to. This case demonstrates forming a company with an improper motive to prevent having to respect the original agreement to transfer the property and so the company was deemed 'sham' or 'fa�ade,' as a result of this the courts lifted the veil of incorporation.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work