Rule in foss v harbottle, Business Law and Ethics

RULE IN FOSS v HARBOTTLE:

 What has come to be recognized in company law as "the rule in Foss v Harbottle" is the decision of Vice-Chancellor Wigram in the case of Foss v Harbottle in which the facts, briefly, were as follows.

The plaintiffs, Foss and Turton, were shareholders in a company called The Victoria Park Co. which was formed by statute to buy land for use as a pleasure park. The defendants were the company's five directors and others.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had defrauded the company in various ways, and in particular that certain of the defendants had sold land belonging to them to the company at an exorbitant price. They asked the court to order the defendants to make good the losses to the company and also sought the appointment of a receiver.

It was held that it was incompetent for the plaintiffs to bring such going on, the sole right to do so being that of the company in its corporate character.  The judge stated:

"In law the corporation and the aggregate members of the corporation are not the same thing for purposes like this; and the only question can be whether the facts alleged in this case justify a departure from the rule that, prima facie, would utilize that the corporation should sue in its own name and in its corporate character or in the name of someone whom the law has appointed to be its representative."

The judge eventually concluded that no departure from the rule was justified in the case before him.  The same rule was restated with more clarity by Lord Davey in Burland v Earle when he stated;

"In order to redress a wrong done to the company or to recover moneys or damages alleged to be due to the company, the action there should prima facie be brought by the company itself."

Posted Date: 1/15/2013 2:57:59 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Rule in foss v harbottle, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Rule in foss v harbottle, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Rule in foss v harbottle Discussions

Write discussion on Rule in foss v harbottle
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
General principles of Calls on contributories: If it is necessary to make calls on contributories the liquidator draws up a list "A" of contributories who were members at th

Indicators of phoenix activity Stakeholders noted that there are a range of 'signals' or 'indicators' that phoenix activity may be about to occur. These generally occur before t

What is the neighbour rule? Duty of care: There is a duty of care by anyone to other where this can be reasonably foreseen which one’s action may injure another (negligen

Illustrate the doctrine of judicial precedent? The doctrine of judicial precedent It states that higher court decision are binding on lower courts and like a result it i

Removal:             Article 107 provides that the managing director's "appointment shall be automatically determined if he cease from any cause to be a director". However it

Purchase Of Own Shares: Another possible way in which a company's paid-up capital may leave the company other than in the ordinary course of the company's business would be if

Financial Year of Holding Company and Subsidiary: S.153(1) provides that a holding company's directors shall ensure that, except where in their opinion there are good reasons

John, a young CPA and one of the audit team members for Moulberg Electrical Appliances Ltd, has developed very good insights into the company's systems in the last 12 months and wa

For this unit you will be given a hypothetical business situation, which is to be developed in line with statutory and voluntary compliance requirements to enable the business to o

PENALTY FOR IMPROPER APPOINTMENT:           S.161 (4) provides that if any unqualified person is appointed as auditor, the person appointed, the company and every officer i