Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd

Last updated
Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd
Bundalong General Store.JPG
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Decided14 February 1974
Citation(s) [1974] UKPC 3, [1974]  AC  821; [1975] 1  NSWLR  68
Case history
Prior action(s)Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1972] 2  NSWLR  850
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon
Keywords
Directors' duties, improper purpose, hostile takeover

Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] UKPC 3 is a leading UK company law case, concerning the duty of directors to act only for "proper purposes". This duty has been codified into the Companies Act 2006 section 171, and arises particularly in cases involving takeover bids.

Companies Act 2006 British statute

The Companies Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which forms the primary source of UK company law. It had the distinction of being the longest Act in British Parliamentary history: with 1,300 sections and covering nearly 700 pages, and containing 16 schedules but it has since been surpassed, in that respect, by the Corporation Tax Act 2009.

Contents

Facts

RW Millers was embroiled in a hostile takeover bid, by a large petrol company called Ampol. Ampol already controlled (with an associated company) 55% of the shares. The directors did not want Ampol to buy the shares of RW Millers as Howard Smith had bettered terms for take over by offering employment to the directors even in the future. So the directors of RW Millers issued $10m of new shares. They said it was to finance the completion of two tankers. The shares were given to Howard Smith Ltd who were going to take over RW Millers, and that blocked Ampol’s rival bid. Without the issue, Howard Smith Ltd had no hope of succeeding in taking over the company. But with the new issue, Ampol could not complete its acquisition. Ampol commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW.

Ampol

Ampol was a petrol company in Australia. It was first incorporated in 1936 in New South Wales to market petrol in its chain of service stations. In 1995, Ampol merged with Caltex to make Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd, which in 1997 became Caltex Australia Ltd, registered and based in Singapore.

Howard Smith Limited was an Australian industrial company. Founded in 1854 as a shipping company, it later diversified into coal mining, steel production, stevedoring, travel, railway rolling stock building, sugar production and retail. Its divisions began to be sold off in the 1990s with the remainder taken over by Wesfarmers in August 2001.

Street CJ in Eq said that the argument of the directors that the tanker purchase was the dominant purpose was ‘unreal and unconvincing’. [1] :at p. 878 The issue of shares to Howard Smith was held to be invalid. Howard Smith sought and obtained conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council. [1]

Laurence Street Australian judge

Commodore Sir Laurence Whistler Street, AC, KCMG, KStJ, QC was an Australian jurist; formerly the fourteenth and second youngest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and Lieutenant-Governor of New South Wales. He was the third consecutive generation of his family to have served New South Wales in these offices; the only such case in Australian history.

Judgment

The Privy Council dismissed the appeal.

Lord Wilberforce held that the issue of shares was within power but that it was exercised for an improper purpose. ‘To define in advance [what that means is] impossible.’ It must be adjudged ‘in the light of modern conditions’, and referred back to Hogg v Cramphorn Ltd . [2] His judgment continued.

Richard Wilberforce, Baron Wilberforce British judge

Richard Orme Wilberforce, Baron Wilberforce, was a British judge. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1964 to 1982.

Hogg v Cramphorn Ltd [1967] Ch 254 is a famous UK company law case on the director liability. The Court held that corporate directors who dilute the value of the stock in order to prevent a hostile takeover are breaching their fiduciary duty to the company.

The extreme argument on one side is that, for validity, what is required is bona fide exercise of the power in the interests of the company: that once it is found that the directors were not motivated by self-interest—i.e. by a desire to retain their control of the company or their positions on the board—the matter is concluded in their favour and that the court will not inquire into the validity of their reasons for making the issue...

It can be accepted, as one would only expect, that the majority of cases in which issues of shares are challenged in the courts are cases in which the vitiating element is the self-interest of the directors, or at least the purpose of the directors to preserve their own control of the management.

Further it is correct to say that where the self-interest of the directors is involved, they will not be permitted to assert that their action was bona fide thought to be, or was, in the interest of the company; pleas to this effect have invariably been rejected... just as trustees who buy trust property are not permitted to assert that they paid a good price.

But it does not follow from this, as the appellants assert, that the absence of any element of self-interest is enough to make an issue valid. Self-interest is only one, though no doubt the commonest, instance of improper motive: and, before one can say that a fiduciary power has been exercised for the purpose for which it was conferred, a wider investigation may have to be made...

It would be wrong for the court to substitute its opinion for that of the management, or indeed to question the correctness of the management’s decision, on such a question, if bona fide arrived at. There is no appeal on merits from management decisions to courts of law: nor will courts of law assume to act as a kind of supervisory board over decisions within the powers of management honestly arrived at. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

Board of directors Board composed of directors

A board of directors is a group of people who jointly supervise the activities of an organization, which can be either a for-profit business, nonprofit organization, or a government agency. Such a board's powers, duties, and responsibilities are determined by government regulations and the organization's own constitution and bylaws. These authorities may specify the number of members of the board, how they are to be chosen, and how often they are to meet.

Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one gives what they don't have" is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. It is equivalent to the civil (continental) "Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet" rule, which means "one cannot transfer to another more rights than he has". The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction ; however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner.

The business judgment rule is a case law-derived doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives. It is rooted in the principle that the "directors of a corporation... are clothed with [the] presumption, which the law accords to them, of being [motivated] in their conduct by a bona fide regard for the interests of the corporation whose affairs the stockholders have committed to their charge". The rule exists in some form in most common law countries, including the United States, Canada, England and Wales, and Australia.

Teck Corp Ltd v Millar, (1972), 33 DLR (3d) 288 (BCSC) is an important Canadian corporate law decision on a corporate director's fiduciary duty in the context of a takeover bid. Justice Thomas R. Berger of the British Columbia Supreme Court held that a director may resist a hostile take-over so long as they are acting in good faith, and they have reasonable grounds to believe that the take-over will cause substantial harm to the interests of the shareholders collective. The case was viewed as a shift away from the standard set in the English case of Hogg v. Cramphorn Ltd. (1963). Recent scholarship has made the following observation:

<i>Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver</i>

Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver[1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company. The Court held that a director is in breach of his duties if he takes advantage of an opportunity that the corporation would otherwise be interested in but was unable to take advantage. However the breach could have been resolved by ratification by the shareholders, which those involved neglected to do.

United Kingdom company law corporate law of the United Kingdom

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.

Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v The Rank Organisation Ltd. [1985] BCLC 11 is a UK company law case dealing with "oppression" under s.20 Companies Act 1948. Goulding J delivered the first instance judgment.

Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.

<i>Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co Ltd</i>

Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co Ltd [1920] 1 Ch 154 is a UK company law case, concerning the alteration of a company's constitution, and the rights of a minority shareholder.

Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co (Maidenhead) [1927] 1 Ch 154 is a UK company law case, concerning alteration of a company's constitution.

<i>Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd</i>

Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd [1900] 1 Ch 656 is a UK company law case concerning alteration of a company's articles of association. It held that alterations could not be interfered with by the court unless a change was made that was bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole. This rule served as a marginal form of minority shareholder protection at common law, before the existence of any unfair prejudice remedy.

The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers is a binding set of rules that apply to listed companies in the United Kingdom, such as those trading on the London Stock Exchange. Many of its provisions are mirrored in the EU Takeover Directive.

<i>Re Smith & Fawcett Ltd</i>

Re Smith and Fawcett Ltd. [1942] Ch 304 is a UK company law case, concerning the meaning of "the interests of the company". It is relevant for the Companies Act 2006 section 172.

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

Canadian corporate law

Canadian company law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

<i>Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd</i>

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.

<i>Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc</i>

Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc[2015] UKSC 71 was a decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to the exercise of directors' powers for a proper purpose under English company law.

<i>Citco Banking Corporation NV v Pussers Ltd</i>

Citco Banking Corporation NV v Pusser's Ltd[2007] UKPC 13 is a judicial decision of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands in relation to the validity of amendments to the memorandum and articles of association of a company, and the requirement of shareholders to exercise the votes attached to their shares in the best interests of the company as a whole.

References

  1. 1 2 Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1972] 2  NSWLR  850 (14 December 1972), Supreme Court (NSW, Australia).
  2. Hogg v Cramphorn Ltd [1967] Ch 254.
  3. at p. 834