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
QUESTION 1 Discuss the functions of the following- (a) The Workfare Programme (b) The Advisory Council for Occupational Safety and Health (c) Health and Safety Officer

Duty of an auditor: The duty of an auditor generally was very carefully considered by this court in RE: LONDON AND GENERAL BANK (1895) and I cannot usefully add anything to wh

Types and Classification of Law: Rules of law may be classified as like;: For Written For National and International For Public and Private For Substantive

Q. Suggested actions for addressing phoenix activity? The following actions are suggested for addressing phoenix activity. Those that have been suggested are the actions that:

Capacity - Sales of goods Through S.4 (1) provides such capacity to buy and to sell is governed through the natural law concerning capacity for contract. Although where necess

Explain responsibility of the state under International law State responsibility upon a state and holding it responsible for a violation of an international law, the element of

Question 1: Constructive dismissal is inherently different from dismissal in the sense that it is the employee who necessarily takes the initiative in considering the contract

Jevin has operated a business as a sole trader for a number of years. Now, he is being advised by friends that he should consider registering as a company in order to gain the bene

Effect Of Rescission: Where a contract of allotment is rescinded, the former shareholder will be entitled to his money back (normally with interest) and to a refund of any exp

Q. Diffrence between phoenix activity and  honest behaviour? There are circumstances where a business has been managed responsibly and fails, and after a period of time, its di