Article

No Reflective Loss: English Approach Reconsidered

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

A company shareholder should have no difficulty in commencing a claim to recover the loss suffered due to a wrong done to their personal property. The right to the protection of property is a fundamental human right in English law. A wronged person whose property right is infringed will have the right to commence legal proceeding against wrongdoers. However, in the company context the exercise of a shareholder’s right of action may conflict with the company’s right of action where the loss sought is reflective. The English company law’s arrangement has been that a shareholder’s action is exceptional beyond which it will routinely be barred through the principle of the ‘no reflective loss’. Where company’s loss and the shareholders’ loss are reflectively linked, then the company’s action prevails the shareholder action. This paper would argue that the two actions should swap places in law. Shareholder action should be recognised as a general principle of law while it is barred exceptionally in circumstances where stronger policy considerations such as the observation of the corporate autonomy are to be prioritised.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
One of several meanings of the term "abuse of rights" provides that there is an abuse of right when the exploitation of an individual right injuriously affects the interests of the community. The concept of abuse of rights derives from national legal systems notwith-standing that its content may vary among states. Abuse of rights has influenced international law in areas where it is widely considered to be a part of interna-tional law, whether as a general principle of law or as part of customary international law. In examining these origins and the historical ap-plications and contemporary limitations of abuse of rights, the author contends that although it may not be relevant to a number of areas of international law, abuse of rights retains an important role with respect to vari-ous international legal issues. These issues include the resolution of certain types of normative conflicts, the protection of "common spaces" and "matters of com-mon concern", and the promotion of normative change. Abuse of rights, the author demonstrates, may be a deft instrument, and one not to be forgotten, in dealing with issues such as transboundary pollution, declining fish-stocks and whale populations, and the protection of ar-eas such as the Antarctic and space. Une des significations de l'expression pr6voit qu'il y a abus de droit si 'exploitation d'un droit individuel a pour consquence d'entralner un pr6judice A une communaut6. Bien que son contenu puisse atre difftrent selon les 6tats, le concept d'abus de droit provient de syst;mes juridiques nationaux. L'abus de droit a influenc6 le droit international dans des r6-gions ob le concept est compris comme faisant partie du droit international, soit comme un principe g6n6ral de droit, soit comme faisant partie du droit international coutumier. En examinant les origines, les applications histo-riques et les limitations contemporaines de la notion d'abus de droit, l'auteur soutient que, alors que le con-cept n'est peut-4tre pas applicable A tous les domaines du droit international, il conserve un r6le important en ce qui conceme plusieurs questions juridiques intema-tionales. Ces questions comprennent la rdsolution de certains conflits normatifs, la protection des > et des <<questions d'intr& g6n~rab> et la promotion des changements normatifs. L'auteur nous d6montre que l'abus de droit peut 8tre un instrument ing6nieux, qu'il ne faut pas oublier, particulirement lorsque l'on doit traiter des questions telles que ]a pollu-tion transnationale, le d6clin de ]a population des pois-sons et des baleines et la protection de l'Antarctique et de l'espace.
Article
Purpose - To consider whether the courts, in addressing petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act, the unfairly prejudicial remedy, have undermined the rule in the case of Foss versus Harbottle. Design/methodology/approach - The case of Foss versus Harbottle focused on the prohibition on the recovery of reflective loss, and the standing requirements with respect to derivative claims by allowing a combination of corporate and personal claims. Discusses the implications for the case of Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB versus Baltic Partners Ltd, that a cause of action vested in a company could be prosecuted to judgment on an unfairly prejudicial petition and that the court could order that damages be paid by wrongdoing directors to the company. Findings - The case of Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB versus Baltic Partners Ltd indicated that the courts are quite restrictive in their approach and that this should continue to be the position, especially in the light of the statutory derivative claim now provided for by Companies Act 2006, Part 11. Originality/value - Clarifies some of the confusion that might have arisen in this implementation of the Companies Act.
Article
Sections 459-461 of the Companies Act 1985 are at the forefront of the remedies available to protect minority shareholders from oppression in the UK. The danger is that companies will be run exclusively in the interests of the controlling shareholders, and that the interests of the minority shareholders will be ignored, or at least not fully recognised. These sections provide general protection from oppression for minority shareholders. They are drafted in deliberately wide terms. A number of important recent decisions, in particular that of the Court of Appeal in Clark v. Cutland, have provided substantial guidance as to the role and scope of section 459. This article will examine these new developments and their implications for the future of shareholder protection. In particular, it is suggested that the decision in Clark v. Cutland has expanded the potential use of section 459, to enable it to be used as a real alternative to the derivative action for minority shareholders who wish to pursue a substantive remedy for their company. This article analyses the differences between a section 459 petition and a derivative action for such shareholders. This analysis suggests that section 459 may provide a more flexible and useful route for shareholders seeking to pursue a corporate claim in some circumstances.
A principled approach to self-regulation? The report of the Hampel Committee on Corporate Governance' (1998) 19 The Company Lawyer
  • Alan Dignam
Dignam Alan 'A principled approach to self-regulation? The report of the Hampel Committee on Corporate Governance' (1998) 19 The Company Lawyer 147-8.
The government of business corporations: Critical reflections on the rule of one share, one vote
  • L David
  • Ratner
David L Ratner 'The government of business corporations: Critical reflections on the rule of one share, one vote' (1970) 1
A more active role for institutional investors' (1979) The Barker, 49; Richard Nolan 'Indirect inventors: A greater say in the company?
  • P E Moody
P E Moody 'A more active role for institutional investors' (1979) The Barker, 49; Richard Nolan 'Indirect inventors: A greater say in the company?' (2003) 3 Journal of Corporate Law Studies 73-7.
Companies in general
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
Hans-Christoph Hirt 'Companies in general' (2003) Journal of Business Law 420-9 at 422-8.
Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct: A Pathway Through the Maze
  • Bryan Clark
Bryan Clark 'Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct: A Pathway Through the Maze' (2001) Company Lawyer 22 (6) 170 at 172; Hirt op cit note 139 at 101;
Re London School of Electronics Ltd
Re London School of Electronics Ltd 1986 Ch 211 (ChD);
  • Dalby V Bodilly
Dalby v Bodilly 2004 EWHC 3078 (Ch);
  • Casey Lloyd V
Lloyd v Casey 2002 Pens LR 185 (ChD);
2 BCLC 393; Allmark v Burnham
  • Cutland Clark V
Clark v Cutland 2003 2 BCLC 393; Allmark v Burnham 2005 EWHC 2717 (Ch);
Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB v Baltic Partners Ltd
Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB v Baltic Partners Ltd 2007 All ER (D) 222;
Sons (Clothing) Ltd 1983 BCLC 273 at 287 (per Nourse J); for a contrary opinion see Leader & Dine op cit note 51 at 229
  • R A Re
  • Noble
Re R A Noble & Sons (Clothing) Ltd 1983 BCLC 273 at 287 (per Nourse J); for a contrary opinion see Leader & Dine op cit note 51 at 229.
Shareholders' remedies in the common law world' (1997) Company, Financial and Insolvency Law Review 173 at 180; Conway op cit note 190 at
  • Len Sealy
Len Sealy 'Shareholders' remedies in the common law world' (1997) Company, Financial and Insolvency Law Review 173 at 180; Conway op cit note 190 at 13-14;
Unfairly prejudicial conduct
  • Bryan Clark
Bryan Clark 'Unfairly prejudicial conduct' (1999) 38
Company law: Individual shareholder rights' (2000) 11 International Company and Commercial Law Review N
  • Stephen Copp
Stephen Copp 'Company law: Individual shareholder rights' (2000) 11 International Company and Commercial Law Review N 6-8.
Another v Scottish Textile and Manufacturing Co Ltd & Another 1954 SC 381 at 392 (per Lord Cooper); see also Stephen Griffin 'Negligent mismanagement as unfairly prejudicial conduct' (1992) 108 Law Quarterly Review 389
  • See Meyer
See Meyer & Another v Scottish Textile and Manufacturing Co Ltd & Another 1954 SC 381 at 392 (per Lord Cooper); see also Stephen Griffin 'Negligent mismanagement as unfairly prejudicial conduct' (1992) 108 Law Quarterly Review 389.
Shareholder remedies and the no reflective loss principleproblems surrounding the identification of a membership interest
  • Stephen Griffin
Stephen Griffin 'Shareholder remedies and the no reflective loss principleproblems surrounding the identification of a membership interest' (2010) 6 JBL 461-473;
A derivative action by way of s 459
  • Joanna Gray
Joanna Gray 'A derivative action by way of s 459' (1997) 18
Closing the categories of unfair prejudice
  • Robert Goddard
Robert Goddard 'Closing the categories of unfair prejudice' (1999) 20 Company Lawyer 333; Clark op cit note 181 at 171; Davies op cit note 110 at 735.
Company Lawyer 31; Prudential supra note 24; For an analysis of the approach see AJ Boyle 'The judicial interpretation of part xvii of the Companies Act
  • J Vinelot
Vinelot J 'Minority shareholders' (1985) 6 Company Lawyer 31; Prudential supra note 24; For an analysis of the approach see AJ Boyle 'The judicial interpretation of part xvii of the Companies Act 1985' in BG Pettet (ed) Company Law in Change (1987) 23-24; AJ Boyle 'Unfair prejudice in the House of Lords' (2000) 21 Company Lawyer, 253; Stephan Mayson, Derek French & Christopher Ryan Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law 19 ed (2003) 619-620.
J) 93; MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396; Cheney v Conn 1968 1 All ER 779; Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke 1969 1 AC 645; Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 1 CMLR 563
  • Mortensen V Peters
Mortensen v Peters 1906 8 F(J) 93; MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396; Cheney v Conn 1968 1 All ER 779; Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke 1969 1 AC 645; Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 1 CMLR 563; Blackburn v Attorney-General 1971 1 WLR 1073; See also Albert Venn Dicey 8 ed An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1855) (1915) 3-36.
  • Bolton V Stone
Bolton v Stone 1951 AC 850; Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951 AC 367; Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) AC 53; Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990 UKHL 2.
Sons Ltd 1992 BCLC 213 at 227 (per Warner J)
  • J E Re
  • Cade
Re JE Cade & Sons Ltd 1992 BCLC 213 at 227 (per Warner J);
Another v Phillips & Others 1999 2 All ER 961 HL at 967 (per Hoffman J)
  • O'neill
O'Neill & Another v Phillips & Others 1999 2 All ER 961 HL at 967 (per Hoffman J).
Companies and judicial review' (1994) 15 Company Lawyer 15 (8) 235 at 239; Davies op cit note 17 at 517
  • Michael Sinclair
Michael Sinclair 'Companies and judicial review' (1994) 15 Company Lawyer 15 (8) 235 at 239; Davies op cit note 17 at 517;
Abuse of rights in France, Germany, and Switzerland: A survey of a recent chapter in legal doctrine
  • Vera Bolgar
Vera Bolgar 'Abuse of rights in France, Germany, and Switzerland: A survey of a recent chapter in legal doctrine' (1975) Louisiana Law Review 1015;