Misplaced Pages

Estmanco (Kilner House) Ltd v Greater London Council

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Estmanco Ltd v Greater London Council
CourtHigh Court of Justice
Full case name Estmanco (Kilner House) Ltd v Greater London Council
Citation 1 WLR 2, 1 All ER 437
Keywords
Derivative claim

Estmanco (Kilner House) Ltd v Greater London Council 1 WLR 2 is a UK company law and UK insolvency law case concerning derivative claims. It held that majority voting power cannot be used to stultify the purposes for which the company was formed, although the result has to be read in light of the new directors' duties and derivative claim codified in the Companies Act 2006 sections 172 and 260-26.

Facts

Ms Frances Mary Cope had bought a flat in a refurbished housing block, Kilner House Clayton St, London SE11 5SE, that had been owned by the Greater London Council until the Conservative Party began its right to buy policy of privatising council housing. Estmanco (Kilner House) Ltd was set up to hold properties, and allot to each buyer a share, but with the GLC retaining all voting rights until the last flat was sold. Then the Labour Party won the election, and halted the privatisation policy. Ms Cope requested permission to bring a derivative claim for herself and other people who had bought their flats, alleging that the directors (now effectively the Labour administration of the GLC) breached their duty to act for proper purposes.

Judgment

Sir Robert Megarry VC held that the derivative claim could continue, and the Greater London Council could not use its voting power to permanently prevent other shareholders acquiring voting rights, as that would undermine the purpose for which the company was formed. This would be a fraud on the minority, according to Foss v Harbottle and Daniels v Daniels.

See also

Minority protection cases
Companies Act 2006 ss 260-264
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189
Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw AC 701
Edwards v Halliwell 2 All ER 1064
Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd Ch 286
Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) QB 373
Estmanco v Greater London Council 1 WLR 2
Smith v Croft (No 2) Ch 114
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone
Companies Act 2006 ss 994-996
Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd 2 Ch 426
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd AC 360
Re Bird Precision Bellows Ltd Ch 658
Insolvency Act 1986 s 122(1)(g)
Re London School of Electronics Ch 211
O’Neill v Phillips
see UK company law

Notes

  1. 67 E.R. 189
  2. Ch 406

References

Categories: