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
Registration of Prospectus:  S.43 (1) provides that no prospectus shall be issued by or on behalf of a company unless, on or before the date of its publication, there has been

Compulsory winding up: At the hearing other creditors of the company may oppose the petition.  If so, the court is likely to decide in favour of those to whom the larger amoun

Empowers directors - company management: In the case of companies which have adopted Table A, Article 107 empowers directors to appoint a managing director "for such period an

Third Reading: Now next is offers in Order 112(1) which is on the adoption of a report on a Bill the Third Reading may regarding leave of Mr. Speaker be taken forthwith and wh

Resolution for the variation - Statutory provisions: Where any application is made pursuant to this provision, the variation shall not have effect unless and until it is confi


Termination of an Offer - Revocation Such offer is "revoked" whether the offeror changes his thinking and withdraws it as for expressly or impliedly.  However to be valid suc

Standard of proof in civil cases: Therefore the standard of proof in civil cases is on a preponderance of probabilities or on a balance of probabilities.  So it must be more p

Law of Agency - Lawful Rules Though the law of agency prescribes the lawful rules to ascertaining as:           (a) How a person possibly will become an agent; and one is

Advantages of Stare Decisis - Practicality In fact the case law method has enabled judges to adopt a practical approach for legal problems since those problems have arisen