Duomatic principle

Last updated August 01, 2020

"[W]here the articles of a company require a course to be approved by a group of shareholders at a general meeting, that requirement can be avoided if all members of the group, being aware of the relevant facts, either give their approval to that course, or so conduct themselves as to make it inequitable for them to deny that they have given their approval."

EIC Services Ltd v Phipps [2003] EWHC 1507(Ch), per Neuberger J

The Duomatic principle is a principle of English company law relating to the informal approval of actions by a company's shareholders (and, potentially, directors).^[1] The principle is named after one of the earlier judicial decisions in which it was recognised: Re Duomatic Ltd [1969] 2 Ch 365, although in that case Buckley J was approving an older statement of the law from the decisions in In re Express Engineering [1920] 1 Ch 466 and Parker and Cooper Ltd v Reading [1926] Ch 975. It origins lie in the obiter dictum comments of Lord Davey in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd where he stated that 'the company is bound in a matter intra vires by the unanimous agreement of its members'.^[2]

Re Duomatic

The decision in Re Duomatic concerned whether certain payments made to directors of a company were valid even though none of the directors had contracts of service with the company, and no resolution had ever been passed authorising them to receive the payments. The company went into liquidation and the liquidator made an application for repayment of the money. The court held that the payments were to be regarded as properly authorised because they had been made with the full knowledge and consent of all the shareholders. Buckley J explained:^[5]

I proceed upon the basis that where it can be shown that all shareholders who have a right to attend and vote at a general meeting of the company assent to some matter which a general meeting of the company could carry into effect, that assent is as binding as a resolution in general meeting would be.

The broad principle has never been seriously questioned by the courts since. In EIC Services Ltd v Phipps [2003] EWHC 1507 Neuberger J stated:^[6]

The essence of the Duomatic principle, as I see it, is that, where the articles of a company require a course to be approved by a group of shareholders at a general meeting, that requirement can be avoided if all members of the group, being aware of the relevant facts, either give their approval to that course, or so conduct themselves as to make it inequitable for them to deny that they have given their approval. Whether the approval is given in advance or after the event, whether it is characterised as agreement, ratification, waiver, or estoppel, and whether members of the group give their consent in different ways at different times, does not matter.

Requirements

The application of the Duomatic principle contains two core requirements:^[1]

The consent of shareholders must be unanimous.
The shareholders must consent with full knowledge of what it is they are consenting to.

Furthermore, subsequent cases indicate that there must be some outward manifestation of the consent, either in the form of a document, a statement or by conduct. A mere "internal decision" on the part of the shareholders is not sufficient by itself. In Rolfe v Rolfe [2010] EWHC 244 Newey J stated:^[7]

I do not accept that a shareholder's mere internal decision can of itself constitute assent for Duomatic purposes. I was not referred to any authority in which it had been decided that a mere internal decision would suffice. Further, for a mere internal decision, unaccompanied by outward manifestation or acquiescence, to be enough would, as it seems to me, give rise to unacceptable uncertainty and, potentially, provide opportunities for abuse. A company may change hands or enter into an insolvency procedure; in either event, it is desirable that past decisions should be objectively verifiable. In my judgment, there must be material from which an observer could discern or (as in the case of acquiescence) infer assent. The law applies an objective test in other contexts: for example, when determining whether a contract has been formed. An objective approach must, I think, also have a role with the Duomatic principle.

Expansion

In subsequent cases courts have expanded the general principle to also apply to a wider array of situations.

In Ciban Management Corporation v Citco (BVI) Limited [2020] UKPC 31 it was affirmed that the principle applied to the ostensible authority of persons as well as to express authority.
In Shahar v Tsitsekkos [2004] EWHC 2659(Ch) it was held that the consent of the beneficial owner of any shares would be sufficient if the trustee can be compelled to vote in accordance with the beneficial owner's wishes. But in Rolfe v Rolfe [2010] EWHC 244(Ch) it was clarified that where shares were held for more than one beneficial owner as joint owners, the assent of only one of the joint owners would not be sufficient.
In Runciman v Walter Runciman plc [1992] BCLC 1084 at 1092 and Base Metal Trading v Shamurin [2004] EWCA Civ 1316 it was held that informal and unanimous consent of the board of directors is also effective as a resolution passed at a duly convened meeting. Prior to those cases there was doubt as to whether the principle would apply to directors because of their fiduciary duties to the company might preclude informal assent.
The principle has also been extended beyond company law to include committees of clubs which are unincorporated associations, see Speechley v Allott [2014] EWCA Civ 230.

Footnotes

1 2 "What is the 'Duomatic Principle' & Why is it important?". Jordans. Retrieved 9 July 2016.
↑ Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, 57
↑ "Application of the Duomatic principle". Practical Law. Retrieved 9 July 2016.
↑ Sarah Worthington QC (2016). Sealy & Worthington's Text, Cases & Materials in Company Law (11th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 217. ISBN 9780198722052. Curiously, the Duomatic case has received greater recognition than it probably deserves, that practising lawyers now commonly refer to the rule established by Express Engineering and later cases (all cited in Duomatic) as 'the Duomatic Principle', overlooking the fact that the principle had been established many decades earlier.
↑ [1969] 2 Ch 365 at 373C
↑ at paragraph 122
↑ at [41]

Related Research Articles

Piercing the corporate veil Temporary rescission of corporate personhood

Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders. Usually a corporation is treated as a separate legal person, which is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed. Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil.

Offer and acceptance two components of agreement

Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law. The offer and acceptance formula, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of formation when the parties are of one mind. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance.

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders to pay up outstanding debts owed.

Kosmopoulos v Constitution Insurance Co of Canada is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the court's ability to pierce the corporate veil—to impose an interest or liability, that is, upon the shareholders of a company instead of the company itself. It was held that the veil can only be lifted where it would be "just and equitable", specifically to third parties.

Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 is a UK company law case on separate legal personality and limited liability of shareholders. The case also addressed long-standing issues under the English conflict of laws as to when a company would be resident in a foreign jurisdiction such that the English courts would recognise the foreign court's jurisdiction over the company. It has in effect been superseded by Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, which held that a parent company could be liable for the actions of a subsidiary on ordinary principles of tort law.

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 is a United Kingdom company law case on the rights of minority shareholders. The case was decided in the House of Lords.

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of consent-based obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Constructive trusts in English law are a form of trust created by the English law courts primarily where the defendant has dealt with property in an "unconscionable manner"—but also in other circumstances. The property is held in "constructive trust" for the harmed party, obliging the defendant to look after it. The main factors that lead to a constructive trust are unconscionable dealings with property, profits from unlawful acts, and unauthorised profits by a fiduciary. Where the owner of a property deals with it in a way that denies or impedes the rights of some other person over that property, the courts may order that owner to hold it in constructive trust. Where someone profits from unlawful acts, such as murder, fraud, or bribery, these profits may also be held in constructive trust. The most common of these is bribery, which requires that the person be in a fiduciary office. Certain offices, such as those of trustee and company director, are always fiduciary offices. Courts may recognise others where the circumstances demand it. Where someone in a fiduciary office makes profits from their duties without the authorisation of that office's beneficiaries, a constructive trust may be imposed on those profits; there is a defence where the beneficiaries have authorised such profits. The justification here is that a person in such an office must avoid conflicts of interest, and be held to account should he fail to do so.

Trustor AB v Smallbone [2001] EWHC 703 (Ch) is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.

Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp [1986] Ch 246 is a UK company law case, concerning the enforceability of obligations against a company. The case was one of the last significant cases on ultra vires under English company law before the provisions abrogating that doctrine in the Companies Act 1985 became effective.

Corporate litigation in the United Kingdom is that part of UK company law which gives investors the right to sue the directors of a company, or vindicate another wrong to the company, particularly where the board of directors does not wish to act itself.

Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.

Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.

Gillett v Holt [2000] is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel and a farming businesses' dispute. The case focussed on a farmer of a portfolio of farming businesses without any obvious heirs who made many promises and assurances of inheritance to two partial farm managers who were neighbours or tenants of his, one of whom had farmed for 38 years, the other co-farmed for the last 5 years of those 38 years.

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the context of English family law.

Re Harvard Securities Ltd[1997] EWHC 371 is an English trusts law case, concerning the certainty of subject matter in a trust.

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp[2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud.

Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd[2020] UKSC 31 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to company law and the rule against reflective loss.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[One-1] 1 2 "What is the 'Duomatic Principle' & Why is it important?". Jordans. Retrieved 9 July 2016.

[2] Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, 57

[3] "Application of the Duomatic principle". Practical Law. Retrieved 9 July 2016.

[4] Sarah Worthington QC (2016). Sealy & Worthington's Text, Cases & Materials in Company Law (11th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 217. ISBN 9780198722052. Curiously, the Duomatic case has received greater recognition than it probably deserves, that practising lawyers now commonly refer to the rule established by Express Engineering and later cases (all cited in Duomatic) as 'the Duomatic Principle', overlooking the fact that the principle had been established many decades earlier.

[5] [1969] 2 Ch 365 at 373C

[6] t paragraph 122

[7] t [41]