31:
130:
company. I am unable to adopt that view... There is no question of unfair dealing in this case. The directors did not approach the shareholders with the view of obtaining their shares. The shareholders approached the directors, and named the price at which they were desirous of selling. The plaintiffs’ case wholly fails, and must be dismissed with costs.
114:
before and during the negotiations for that sale, the board of directors had been involved in other negotiations to sell the entire company, which would have made those shares substantially more valuable had they come to fruition. The plaintiff sued, claiming breach of fiduciary duty, in that the shareholders should have been told of these negotiations.
429:
BCLC 372 the court described this as being the general rule, but one which may be subject to exceptions where the circumstances are such that a director may owe a greater duty to an individual shareholder, such as when that shareholder is known to be relying upon the director for guidance, or where
129:
It was strenuously urged that, though incorporation affected the relations of the shareholders to the external world, the company thereby becoming a distinct entity, the position of the shareholders inter se was not affected, and was the same as that of partners or shareholders in an unincorporated
113:
Shareholders in Nixon's
Navigation Co. wanted to sell their shares, and requested that the company's secretary find purchasers. Some directors of the company purchased the shares at £12.10s per share, which price was based upon independent valuation. After the sale, the shareholders discovered that
160:
101:, holding that directors only owe duties of loyalty to the company, and not to individual shareholders. This is now codified in the United Kingdom's
585:
403:
375:
122:
64:
273:
189:
30:
590:
297:
225:
177:
153:
249:
146:
600:
445:
408:
285:
76:
595:
347:
309:
542:
237:
466:
321:
41:
504:
98:
80:
102:
425:
361:
333:
261:
365:
337:
543:"'How Loyal Do I Have to Be?': Fiduciary Duties of Companies' Directors in English Law"
439:
389:
351:
94:
579:
505:"The Impact of Coleman v. Myers on Directors' Duties and the Financing of Takeovers"
413:
379:
213:
125:
held the directors owed duties to the company and not shareholders individually.
564:
526:
488:
419:
However, it has been distinguished in at least two subsequent cases. In
138:
142:
402:
is still considered to be good law, and was followed by the
70:
60:
55:
47:
37:
23:
16:UK company law case concerning directors' duties
127:
154:
8:
161:
147:
139:
29:
20:
376:Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc
430:the shareholder is a vulnerable person.
458:
274:Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd
190:Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers
7:
298:Re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd
226:Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co
178:The Charitable Corporation v Sutton
14:
471:Solicitors' Journal and Reporter
586:United Kingdom company case law
250:Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
509:Auckland University Law Review
286:Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd
1:
446:Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
409:Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
591:High Court of Justice cases
477:(45): 738. 6 September 1902
617:
541:Makovski, Robert (2008).
503:Cooney, Brian S. (1980).
386:
372:
358:
348:CMS Dolphin Ltd v Simonet
344:
330:
318:
306:
294:
282:
270:
258:
246:
234:
222:
210:
198:
186:
174:
75:
28:
238:Re Smith and Fawcett Ltd
568:(subscription required)
530:(subscription required)
492:(subscription required)
563: – via
525: – via
487: – via
414:[2000] UKHL 65
310:Re D’Jan of London Ltd
132:
322:Re Barings plc (No 5)
42:High Court of Justice
193:(1854) 1 Macq HL 461
601:1902 in British law
169:Director duty cases
103:Companies Act 2006
547:Common Law Review
426:Peskin v Anderson
400:Percival v Wright
396:
395:
362:Bhullar v Bhullar
334:Peskin v Anderson
202:Percival v Wright
99:directors' duties
90:Percival v Wright
86:
85:
81:directors' duties
24:Percival v Wright
608:
596:1902 in case law
570:
569:
562:
560:
558:
538:
532:
531:
524:
522:
520:
500:
494:
493:
486:
484:
482:
467:"Current Topics"
463:
262:IDC Ltd v Cooley
181:(1742) 26 ER 642
163:
156:
149:
140:
97:case concerning
56:Court membership
33:
21:
616:
615:
611:
610:
609:
607:
606:
605:
576:
575:
574:
573:
567:
556:
554:
540:
539:
535:
529:
518:
516:
502:
501:
497:
491:
480:
478:
465:
464:
460:
455:
436:
423:2 NZLR 225 and
421:Coleman v Myers
397:
392:
382:
368:
354:
340:
326:
314:
302:
290:
278:
266:
254:
242:
230:
218:
206:
194:
182:
170:
167:
137:
120:
111:
105:, section 170.
17:
12:
11:
5:
614:
612:
604:
603:
598:
593:
588:
578:
577:
572:
571:
533:
495:
457:
456:
454:
451:
450:
449:
442:
440:UK company law
435:
432:
404:House of Lords
394:
393:
390:UK company law
387:
384:
383:
373:
370:
369:
359:
356:
355:
352:EWHC (Ch) 4159
345:
342:
341:
331:
328:
327:
319:
316:
315:
307:
304:
303:
295:
292:
291:
283:
280:
279:
271:
268:
267:
259:
256:
255:
247:
244:
243:
235:
232:
231:
223:
220:
219:
211:
208:
207:
199:
196:
195:
187:
184:
183:
175:
172:
171:
168:
166:
165:
158:
151:
143:
136:
133:
123:Swinfen Eady J
119:
116:
110:
107:
95:UK company law
93:2 Ch 401 is a
84:
83:
73:
72:
68:
67:
65:Swinfen Eady J
62:
58:
57:
53:
52:
49:
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
613:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
589:
587:
584:
583:
581:
566:
552:
548:
544:
537:
534:
528:
514:
510:
506:
499:
496:
490:
476:
472:
468:
462:
459:
452:
448:
447:
443:
441:
438:
437:
433:
431:
428:
427:
422:
417:
415:
411:
410:
405:
401:
391:
385:
381:
378:
377:
371:
367:
364:
363:
357:
353:
350:
349:
343:
339:
336:
335:
329:
324:
323:
317:
312:
311:
305:
300:
299:
293:
288:
287:
281:
276:
275:
269:
264:
263:
257:
252:
251:
245:
240:
239:
233:
228:
227:
221:
216:
215:
209:
204:
203:
197:
192:
191:
185:
180:
179:
173:
164:
159:
157:
152:
150:
145:
144:
141:
134:
131:
126:
124:
117:
115:
108:
106:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
82:
78:
74:
69:
66:
63:
61:Judge sitting
59:
54:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
555:. Retrieved
550:
546:
536:
517:. Retrieved
512:
508:
498:
479:. Retrieved
474:
470:
461:
444:
424:
420:
418:
407:
399:
398:
374:
366:EWCA Civ 424
360:
346:
338:EWCA Civ 326
332:
320:
308:
296:
284:
272:
260:
253:1 All ER 378
248:
236:
224:
214:Cook v Deeks
212:
201:
200:
188:
176:
135:Significance
128:
121:
112:
89:
88:
87:
18:
580:Categories
565:HeinOnline
527:HeinOnline
489:HeinOnline
325:1 BCLC 433
313:1 BCLC 561
557:3 January
519:3 January
481:3 January
265:1 WLR 443
515:(1): 105
434:See also
241:1 Ch 304
217:1 AC 554
205:2 Ch 421
118:Judgment
71:Keywords
51:2 Ch 401
48:Citation
553:(1): 18
380:UKSC 71
77:company
301:Ch 164
289:Ch 477
277:AC 821
229:Ch 407
453:Notes
412:
109:Facts
38:Court
559:2016
521:2016
483:2016
388:see
406:in
582::
549:.
545:.
511:.
507:.
475:46
473:.
469:.
416:.
79:,
561:.
551:9
523:.
513:4
485:.
162:e
155:t
148:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
