| Hilder v Dexter | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation | AC 474 |
| Keywords | |
| Share, issue at a discount | |
| Sources on company shares | |
|---|---|
| Birch v Cropper (1889) 14 App Cas 525 | |
| Andrews v Gas Meter Co 1 Ch 361 | |
| Borland’s Trustee v Steel Brothers & Co Ltd 1 Ch 279 | |
| Companies Act 2006 ss 33 and 282-4 | |
| Scottish Insurance Corp v Wilsons & Clyde Coal Ltd AC 462 | |
| Dimbula Valley (Ceylon) Tea Co v Laurie Ch 353 | |
| Will v United Lankat Plantations Co Ltd AC 11 | |
| Re Bradford Investments Ltd BCLC 224 | |
| Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC | |
| Companies Act 2006 ss 549-551 and 561-571 | |
| Companies Act 2006 ss 10 and 617 | |
| Re Scandinavian Banking Group plc Ch 87 | |
| see UK company law |
Hilder v Dexter AC 474 is a UK company law case concerning shares.
Facts
To raise working capital, United Gold Coast Mining Properties Ltd offered shares at par value to Mr Hilder and others with an option to take further shares at par for two years. After the share price rose, Mr Hilder wished to exercise his option.
Judgment
Earl of Halsbury LC held that Hilder was entitled to exercise the option, as it in no way directly or indirectly contravened the rule against issuing shares at a discount under Companies Act 1900, section 8(2) (now Companies Act 2006, section 580).
See also
References
- Cassim, Farouk H.I. (2006). "Ex Parte Standard Bank Group LTD and Liberty Groups LTD—Black Economic Empowerment Schemes and Section 38(2)(d) of the Companies Act". South African Law Journal. 123 (4): 600. Retrieved 3 January 2016. – via HeinOnline (subscription required)