header-logo header-logo

19 February 2009
Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Company , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Oak Investment Partners XII v Boughtwood [2009] EWHC 176 (Ch), [2009] All ER (D) 67 (Feb)

Company Law

Where a significant shareholder is, as a result of being such a shareholder, appointed to a management role within the company and then engages in a course of conduct in that role involving improper assertion of rights of control over the practical management of the affairs of the company, that conduct is capable of being conduct of the affairs of the company in an unfairly prejudicial manner for the purposes of s 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

There is no reason in principle why conduct by a person employed as a senior manager in a business, even if not a director, should not be relevant to the grant of relief under s 994. Complaint may be made under s 994 even if the mismanagement is not the product of business decisions taken by the board of a company, but by individual directors or others.

Issue: 7357 / Categories: Case law , Company , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll