Facts
The plaintiff company (Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co) was a joint venture company formed between three shareholders to engage in trading, storing and shipping liquified natural gas. Originally, the company was to have been incorporated in the United Kingdom, but after taking tax advice, it was incorporated in Liberia instead, and a separate English company, Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd (referred to as "Services") in the judgment, was incorporated to act as broker and agent. The board of directors of the plaintiff company was composed of appointees from the three shareholders.
Although the business was initially successful, it later collapsed with its liabilities exceeding the value of its assets by over £113 million. A liquidator was appointed and began examining ways in which the company might seek to recover against third parties for the benefit of the creditors. The liquidator brought proceedings against Services that alleged negligence in relation to the provision of financial information to the company. In the same action, it also brought proceedings against each of its directors by alleging negligence in failing to appreciate the obvious deficiency in information provided by services and by making highly speculative and negligent decisions, which could not reasonably be regarded as coming within the "business judgment rule".
Judgment
Although the case is remembered primarily for the statements with respect to company law (referred to in both arguments and the judgment as the "company law point"), the actual decision that the Court of Appeal was required to make related to a procedural point on leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction under RSC Order 11 (now repealed). Because none of the directors was resident in the United Kingdom, and none of the acts complained of by the directors had occurred within the jurisdiction (all of the board meetings had occurred overseas for tax reasons), it was necessary to obtain the leave of the court to serve out. To do so, the plaintiff company needed to satisfy the court either that the acts complained of occurred within the jurisdiction (which the court disposed of rapidly) or that the defendants were a necessary and proper party to an action which was properly commenced against a defendant within the jurisdiction (Services). On the latter point, most of the argument was focused.
Services itself was insolvent and only had nominal assets. It was largely accepted (and may even have been conceded by counsel, it having been decided by Peter Gibson J at first instance) that the predominant reason for bringing a claim against Services at all was to use it as an "anchor defendant" to launch proceedings against the defendant directors. Lord Justice Lawton was content to dismiss the appeal and refuse to leave serve out on this basis alone, [1] but went on to consider the "company law point". In summary, the company law point was whether the cause of action against the directors by the plaintiff company was bound to fail because the relevant acts had all been unanimously approved by the company's shareholders. If it was bound to fail on this basis, it would not be treated as having been properly brought. [2]
Both Lawton LJ and Dillon LJ were satisfied that because the relevant acts complained of had been ratified by the shareholders of the plaintiff company, they became the acts of the company itself, and accordingly, the company could not later complain about them and bring an action in respect of them. [3] Lord Justice May dissented on that point. [4]
The Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed earlier case law that the shareholders themselves owed no duty of care either to the company in which they held shares or to the creditors of that company.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman[1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:
Legal malpractice is the term for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract by a lawyer during the provision of legal services that causes harm to a client.
The interest of the company is a concept that the board of directors in corporations are in most legal systems required to use their powers for the commercial benefit of the company and its members. At common law, transactions which were not ostensibly beneficial to the company were set aside as being void as against the company.
Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote. The tort was revived in 1985 when it was used so that French turkey producers could sue the Ministry of Agriculture over a dispute that harmed their sales.
Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561 is a leading English company law case concerning a director's duty of care and skill, whose main precedent is now codified under Section 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The case was decided under the older Companies Act 1985.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 is an English tort law case concerning the "material increase of risk" test for causation.
United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. Insolvency means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is liquidated, meaning that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the EU Insolvency Regulation, and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.
Bednash v HearseyorRe DGA (UK) Ltd[2001] EWCA 787 is a UK company law and UK insolvency law case, which held that a director's pay and pension was excessive and grossly negligent, and could be recovered after the company went insolvent.
Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens[2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.
Oldham v Kyrris[2003] EWCA Civ 1506 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.
Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd [1992] UKPC 34 is a New Zealand insolvency law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the nature and extent of the liability of a mortgagee, or a receiver and manager, to a mortgagor or a subsequent debenture holder for his actions.
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.
Cayman Islands company law is primarily codified in the Companies Law and the Limited Liability Companies Law, 2016, and to a lesser extent in the Securities and Investment Business Law. The Cayman Islands is a leading offshore financial centre, and financial services form a significant part of the economy of the Cayman Islands. Accordingly company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the Cayman Islands than might otherwise be expected.
In law, an anchor defendant is a person who is made a defendant to a claim for the primary purpose of vesting jurisdiction to hear the claim in a certain court. Usually the purpose of the anchor defendant is to allow claims to be brought in a certain court against another defendant over whom the relevant court would not otherwise have jurisdiction. Accordingly, use of anchor defendants is often a variation of forum shopping.
Hague v Nam Tai Electronics refers to a pair of legal decisions of the Privy Council on appeal from the British Virgin Islands. The first was a unanimous decision given by Lord Hoffman, reported at [2006] UKPC 52, which focussed upon the anti-deprivation rule and secured creditor's rights. The second was a unanimous decision given by Lord Scott, reported at [2008] UKPC 13, and concerned the liability of a company liquidator. The second decision was much more widely reported.
Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:
Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.
McDonald v Horn [1995] 1 All ER 961 is an English trusts law case on pensions, relevant for UK labour law. It enables the beneficiaries of a pension fund to be indemnified for costs in bringing actions for breach of trust, fiduciary duty or the duty of care against the trustees or directors of a pension fund.
