Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Company Law > Case Law - Part 1 > Flashcards

Case Law - Part 1 Flashcards

1
Q

Duties of a promoter

A

Erlanger
v
New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878)

  • Promoters occupy fiduciary position in relation to unformed company
  • Promoters cannot make a profit out of a companies promotion unless the nature of transaction and profits are disclosed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Contractual Capacity

A

Lee
v
Lee’s Air Farming Ltd (1961)

  • A company can enter contracts with persons outside the company and persons within in
  • Insurance company to pay out compensation owed to Lee’s widow
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Pre-Incorporation contracts case law

A

Phonogram v Lane (1981)

Mr Lane was held personally liable to return funds

  • Where a person purports to act on behalf of a company not yet formed
  • Unless clear exclusion of personal liability, s.51 should be given its full effect
  • Can escape liability if there is an agreement to the contrary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Contract of novation

A

Howard v Patent Ivory Manufacturing Company (1888)

  • Method of payment changed from cash (pre-incorp contract) to cash and debentures
  • Held to be evidence of a fresh agreement
  • Newly formed contract cannot takeover pre-incorporation contract without being able to show change in pre-incorp contract
  • Replacing an old obligation with a new one
  • All 3 parties must agree (company, promoter and third-party)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Pre-incorporation contract between agent and third party

A

Braymist v Wise Finance Limited (2002)

  • Third party (Wise) sought to avoid liability
  • Third party (Wise) going to buy land from lawyers of Braymist (agent) not yet formed
  • Third party (Wise) failed to get planning permission and attempted to pull out of contract because Braymist was not yet formed
  • Held that Braymist could enforce contract and Wise was held liable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Name the seminal case and the three reasons it is vital to understanding the significance of corporate personality

A

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897)

  • The HOL recognised that a validly incorporated company could legitimately be used to shield its members from liability
  • Implicitly recognised the validity of a ‘one person’ company (company run by one person, with several dominant nominee shareholders)
  • Recognised that a relationship of agency or trusteeship is not established because a person holds shares (even if all) in a company
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When can a corporate personality be disregarded by STATUTE

A
  • CA 2006 s.399 (group accounts)
  • CA 2006 s.767 (doing business without a trading certificate)
  • CA 2006 s.993 (fraudulent trading)
  • IA 1986 ss.213 and 246ZA (fraudulent trading)
  • IA 1986 ss.214 and 246ZB (wrongful trading)
  • IA 1986 s.238 (transaction at an undervalue)
  • IA 1986 s.239 (preferences)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Disregarding corporate personality under common law (concealment)

A
  • Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd (2013)

The evasion principle

  • where a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose
    enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control;
    and
  • if other, more conventional, remedies have proved to be of no assistance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Disregarding corporate personality under statute (company used as facade or a sham)

A

Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Disregarding corporate personality under statute (relationship of agency exists between parent company and subsidiary)

A

Smith, Stone and Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corporation (1939)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Further application of Prest v Petrodel (2013)

A

Wood v Baker (2015)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Duty of care case law

A

Chandler v Cape Industries plc (2012)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Interpretation of articles case law

A

Rayfield v Hands (1960)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Article amendment case law

A

Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd (1900)

  • Lindley MR stated the power to alter the articles must ‘be exercised, not only in the manner required by law, but also bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole’.
  • The company here refers to the corporate entity, so if an amendment benefits the members, but not the company, then it will be invalid
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Article amendment case law that does not affect the company at all but affects its members

A

Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (1951)

  • Held that the amendment was valid because it might well be in a hypothetical member’s benefit to sell his shares directly to an outsider. Further, the advantage obtained by Mallard was also obtained by all the other shareholders, so the amendment did not discriminate between majority and minority shareholders.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Enforcing s.33 contract

A member breaches a term of the constitution, the company can sue the member for breach of contract

A

Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders’ Association (1915)

  • The company’s articles stated that any dispute between it and a member should be referred to arbitration before any legal proceedings were issued.
  • The constitution formed a contract between the company and Hickman, and Hickman had breached this contract.
  • Accordingly, the court stayed the legal proceedings brought by Hickman
    and allowed the company to enforce the arbitration clause.
17
Q

Enforcing s.33 of contract

A company breaches the terms of the constitution, a member can sue the company for breach of contract

A

Wood v Odessa Waterworks Co (1889)

  • The articles provided that the directors could declare a dividend be paid to the members
  • The board proposed an ordinary resolution stating that debenture bonds would be issued to the members, instead of payment of a dividend.
  • (Wood) objected and sued the company on the ground that it had breached the articles. Wood’s action succeeded and an injunction was granted preventing the bonds from being issued
18
Q

Enforcing s.33 of contract

A member (or members) of the company breaches a term of the constitution, another member can sue for breach of contract

A

Rayfield v Hands (1960)

  • The articles provided that any member who wished to sell his shares should first offer them to the directors and the directors would then purchase them.
  • Directors refused to purchase shares
  • The directors had breached the articles and so Rayfield’s action succeeded. The court ordered that the directors should purchase Rayfield’s shares.
19
Q

Outsiders and outsider rights case law

A

Eley v Positive Government Security Life Assurances Co (1876)

  • Eley as a solicitor could not sue for breach because, as an outsider, he was not party to the s.33 contract
20
Q

Members can only enforce the s.33 contract if they bring a claim in their capacity as a member case law

A

Beattie v E and F Beattie Ltd (1938)

  • Company intitiated proceedings
  • The dispute was between the company and Mr Beattie in his capacity as a director, not in his capacity as a member.
  • Accordingly, the arbitration article could not be enforced and the legal proceedings continued.
21
Q

Apparent authority

A

Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd (1968)

  • Claimant (MD of Hely-Hutchinson) Mr Richards sueing Brayhead for money incurred due to losses following indemnification
  • Board of Brayhead claimed chairperson acted without authority
  • Court held money to be recovered as Brayheads board acquiesced to decisions made by chairman
22
Q

Share expropriation case law deemed invalid

A

Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co (1907) Ltd (1920)

Court held article amendment was not bona fide for the benefit of the company and was therefore invalid

Article provisions state shareholder can be forced to sell his shares to specified persons (usually other directors or shareholders)

23
Q

Implied actual authority case law

A

Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd (1964)

  • Legal relationship between the principle and agent created by a consensual agreement
  • Two types of actual authority (express actual authority, implied actual authority)
24
Q

Share expropriation case law that was approved

A

Sidebottom v Kershaw Leese Co

  • restrictive provision allowing expropriation
  • shareholder competed with company

Company Law (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions