This case set out a general principle that part of a member's property when owning shares was the right to vote. Any interference with that right, in the words of Lord Jessel MR, amounts to an interference with a property right that can lead to a cause of action.
This case indicated that interference with such a right could be both a derivative claim and a personal action. Lord Jessel MR was keen to stress that members could vote in anyway they saw fit, even in circumstances of a conflict of interest. There was no moral or business test that was applicable.
This case was also a reminder of the principle that company law does not look behind the ownership of the shares, for examples if the shares are held in trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment