preview

There Are Two Core Rules Regarding The Protection Of The

Better Essays
Open Document

There are two core rules regarding the protection of the outsider rights under CA, 2006. The rules are the following:
• An ‘outsider’ is incapable to enforce a right allegedly conferred upon him by the articles. This principle was established in Eley v The Positive Government Security Life Assurance Company, Ltd . According to Section-33, anyone other than the company and the shareholders is an outsider. As the director is an outsider, he shall not be able to enforce that provision in the event that the company declines to comply with it. Also, he will not be rescued by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, because the right of enforcement which the Act confers on third parties to contracts is expressly stated not to apply in …show more content…

In some cases, it will be obvious that a provision confers a personal right; a provision conferring multiple voting rights, for example, would presumably fall within this category. In other cases, though, the nature of the right may be less clear.
The reason that outsiders have no right to enforce under any provision in the company’s articles because these are ordinary and extrinsic contract which includes people who are very well-involved in the operation of a company such as a director or those upon whom rights are conferred by the provisions. However, in the considered example, the claimant is a not just a director but is also a member. As such, s.33 expressly gives him a right to rely upon the provisions of the company’s articles with a view to have them enforced. This is favorable by the common law in the case of Pender v. Lunshington, which is an authority for the position that a shareholder can successfully sue the company to have a provision of the memorandum enforced. In the interest of full disclosure, this principle works both ways as the company would be entitled to sue the claimant in the pursuit of enforcing a provision in the articles. This principle is firmly entrenched by the lead authority of Hickman v. Kent and Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders.
However it is quite possible that in order to have a given provision enforced, actions may have to be taken against a fellow member as opposed to the company.

Get Access
Related
Get Access