Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Personal Actions
1. Reforms in CA 2006 have not abolished proper claimant principle from Foss v
Harbottle.
2. Thus individual claims by shareholders still possible
Re a Company [1987]
Hoffmann J
1. Where director allots shares solely for purpose of destroying a majority, the main
basis of action is the wrong to shareholders
1. And not the wrong to company
2. This because members individual rights under articles have been infringed.
3. Thus members have personal right of action.
Lord Millett
1. Shareholders cannot recover for loss in value of shares which is reflective loss
(see notes)
2. This rule exists for policy reasons
1. Is principally for benefit of companys creditors
2. i.e. Ensures loss is recovered by company and not shareholders
Giles v Rhind [2003] (CA)
D, a director, diverted companys most lucrative contract away from company in breach of
duty. As result of loss of this contract, company went into receivership and did not have
enough money to launch proceedings against D. C, fellow shareholder in company, was in
shareholders agreement with D; thus brought action against director for breach of duty. Held:
Were two takeover bids for a company; board of directors accepted lower bid and was able to
take action to enforce this choice on shareholders. Shareholders sued for loss in value of
shares. Held:
Derivative Actions
1. Under s.263(2), court can only refuse leave for derivative action where satisfied that
no director would seek to pursue the claim themselves.
2. Thus if some directors would seek to continue action, court cannot automatically
refuse leave.