124:
whole of the agreement that was made, that the two would act as reasonable men with reasonable courtesy and reasonable conduct in every way towards each other, and arbitration was only to be resorted to with regard to some particular dispute between the directors which could not be determined in any other way. Certainly, having regard to the fact that the only two directors will not speak to each other, and no business which deserves the name of business in the affairs of the company call be carried on, I think the company should not be allowed to continue. I have treated it as a partnership, and under the
Partnership Act of course the application for a dissolution would take the form of an action; but this is not a partnership strictly, it is not a case in which it can be dissolved by action. But ought not precisely the same principles to apply to a case like this where in substance it is a partnership in the form or the guise of a private company? It is a private company, and there is no way to put an end to the state of things which now exists except by means of a compulsory order. It has been urged upon us that, although it is admitted that the “just and equitable” clause is not to be limited to cases ejusdem generis, it has nevertheless been held, according to the authorities, not to apply except where the substratum of the company has gone or where there is a complete deadlock. Those are the two instances which are given, but I should be very sorry, so far as my individual opinion goes, to hold that they are strictly the limits of the “just and equitable” clause as found in the Companies Act. I think that in a case like this we are bound to say that circumstances which would justify the winding up of a partnership between these two by action are circumstances which should induce the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the just and equitable clause and to wind up the company.
28:
123:
Is it possible to say that it is not just and equitable that that state of things should not be allowed to continue, and that the Court should not, intervene and say this is not what the parties contemplated by the arrangement into which they entered? They assumed, and it is the foundation of the
154:
439:
424:
419:
103:
with equal shares and each were directors. They could not agree how the company could be managed. There was no provision for breaking the deadlock.
193:
147:
309:
140:
112:
241:
217:
343:
276:
96:
321:
429:
229:
265:
434:
355:
253:
119:, section 122(1)(g)) as the only way to break the deadlock. Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said the following.
332:
205:
116:
27:
286:
170:
85:
181:
377:
366:
111:
The Court of Appeal held the company could be wound up as just and equitable under the
81:
413:
100:
132:
136:
63:
59:
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR, Pickford LJ and
Warrington LJ
55:
50:
42:
34:
20:
121:
88:case concerning just and equitable winding up.
148:
8:
155:
141:
133:
26:
17:
440:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
388:
194:Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw
7:
310:Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd
425:United Kingdom insolvency case law
113:Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908
14:
242:Estmanco v Greater London Council
218:Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd
420:United Kingdom company case law
344:Re London School of Electronics
277:Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone
97:Yenidje Tobacco Company Limited
1:
322:Re Bird Precision Bellows Ltd
69:Just and equitable winding up
266:Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
230:Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)
456:
363:
352:
340:
330:
318:
306:
298:Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd
294:
284:
273:
262:
250:
238:
226:
214:
202:
190:
178:
168:
163:Minority protection cases
77:Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd
68:
25:
21:Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd
126:
254:Smith v Croft (No 2)
430:1916 in British law
333:Insolvency Act 1986
206:Edwards v Halliwell
117:Insolvency Act 1986
356:O’Neill v Phillips
287:Companies Act 2006
171:Companies Act 2006
373:
372:
115:section 129 (now
86:UK insolvency law
73:
72:
447:
435:1916 in case law
396:
393:
185:(1843) 67 ER 189
182:Foss v Harbottle
157:
150:
143:
134:
51:Court membership
30:
18:
455:
454:
450:
449:
448:
446:
445:
444:
410:
409:
404:
399:
394:
390:
386:
374:
369:
359:
348:
336:
326:
314:
302:
290:
280:
269:
258:
246:
234:
222:
210:
198:
186:
174:
164:
161:
131:
109:
94:
38:Court of Appeal
12:
11:
5:
453:
451:
443:
442:
437:
432:
427:
422:
412:
411:
408:
407:
403:
400:
398:
397:
387:
385:
382:
381:
380:
378:UK company law
371:
370:
367:UK company law
364:
361:
360:
353:
350:
349:
341:
338:
337:
331:
328:
327:
319:
316:
315:
307:
304:
303:
295:
292:
291:
285:
282:
281:
274:
271:
270:
263:
260:
259:
251:
248:
247:
239:
236:
235:
227:
224:
223:
215:
212:
211:
203:
200:
199:
191:
188:
187:
179:
176:
175:
169:
166:
165:
162:
160:
159:
152:
145:
137:
130:
127:
108:
105:
93:
90:
82:UK company law
80:2 Ch 426 is a
71:
70:
66:
65:
61:
60:
57:
56:Judges sitting
53:
52:
48:
47:
44:
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
452:
441:
438:
436:
433:
431:
428:
426:
423:
421:
418:
417:
415:
406:
405:
401:
395:2 Ch 426, 431
392:
389:
383:
379:
376:
375:
368:
362:
358:
357:
351:
346:
345:
339:
334:
329:
324:
323:
317:
312:
311:
305:
300:
299:
293:
288:
283:
279:
278:
272:
268:
267:
261:
256:
255:
249:
244:
243:
237:
232:
231:
225:
220:
219:
213:
209:2 All ER 1064
208:
207:
201:
196:
195:
189:
184:
183:
177:
172:
167:
158:
153:
151:
146:
144:
139:
138:
135:
128:
125:
120:
118:
114:
106:
104:
102:
98:
91:
89:
87:
83:
79:
78:
67:
62:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
391:
354:
342:
320:
308:
297:
296:
275:
264:
252:
240:
228:
216:
204:
192:
180:
122:
110:
101:shareholders
95:
76:
75:
74:
15:
335:s 122(1)(g)
414:Categories
402:References
289:ss 994-996
173:ss 260-264
301:2 Ch 426
129:See also
107:Judgment
99:had two
64:Keywords
46:2 Ch 426
43:Citation
245:1 WLR 2
347:Ch 211
325:Ch 658
313:AC 360
257:Ch 114
233:QB 373
221:Ch 286
197:AC 701
384:Notes
92:Facts
35:Court
365:see
84:and
416::
156:e
149:t
142:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
