Foss V Harbottle Summary

1029 Words5 Pages

According to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843), the minority of companys member (depositor and debentures holder) had been constrain to sue or brought action to corporation, the majority of members, board of directors or companys director as the damage or loss was due to negligence of directors and majority of members who endure the identical loss and not with any type of advantage. (Choong & Sujata, n.d.).

In the case of Pavlides v Jensen [1956], the plaintiff claims that the defendants (companys directors and corporation itself) sold the corporation owned mine underrate negligent, therefore the mistaken done require to be redress. Nevertheless, the action of plaintiff was not maintainable due to the judgment of selling the …show more content…

Furthermore, circumstances over are fall under the exception of Foss v Harbottle (1843) Fraud of minority. Thus, it means that the wrongdoers fall under centre power and controlling the corporation, therefore they have power to prevent the redress action. In addition, the wrongdoers can be corporation directors or majority member. Thus, in statutory to confirm that whether they are constitute a fraud, exercise their power in oppressive manner or their action been look upon as unfairly prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory towards a member, there are few grounds should be shown. Firstly, the majority acquired advantage from corporation to themselves. Secondly, via depressed the company and obtaining advantage. Lastly, preventing redress action being brought. (Aishah, 2003

Open Document