Company Law Case

Table of Contents

Introduction of the Case of Foss v. Harbottle…………………………………………………………………….Pg. 2

Describe and explain the rule set out in Foss v Harbottle and identify the exceptions to the rule

…………………………………………………………………………………..……Pg 3,4,5 & 6

Describe the remedies, if any, which are available for ‘minority’ shareholders who feel that they have been the victim of wrongdoing by those in a ‘majority’……….…………………...Pg 7 & 8

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Pg 9 & 10

Introduction of the Case of Foss v. Harbottle

The Victoria Park Company is a company had been established during September 1835. This company is to establish a residential area for the prosperous business and professional families to stay. This estate will be established to the east of Wilmslow Road. Richard Foss and Edward Starkie are the minority shareholders. A bill was lodged by 2 shareholders of the company that incorporated by Art of Parliament, on their own and the other shareholders’ behalf. In the case they claim that fraudulent transactions misapplying the company’s assets did by 3 bankruptcy directors, a solicitor, proprietor and architect, and take some unqualified people to put in board of director to make it full and a company without clerk or office, in this situation the proprietors has no rights to take out the property from the hand of defendant directors. Observations were made on this point of case is that the trust between the company and company promoters had arises. Void transaction is not necessarily to be created by the possible of avoiding a transaction. A company can select to apply the transaction later and hold the directors bound by them. If the act is given the power that authorized the transaction on mortgage then they can be confirmed. Although this act is the act beyond the power of control of the corporation but if there is any voice of dissenting raise up then cannot be confirmed. The judger Jenkins LJ has said that the...