O'Donnell v Shanahan

Last updated

O'Donnell v Shanahan
MyNameIsRachelCorriePlayhouseTheatre20060329.jpg
Court Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 22, 2009 (2009-07-22)
Citation(s) [2009] EWCA Civ 751
Case history
Prior action(s)[2008] EWHC 1973 (Ch), [2009] BCC 517
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Waller LJ, Rimer LJ and Aikens LJ
Keywords
Unfair prejudice, conflict of interest, secret profits

O'Donnell v Shanahan [2009] EWCA Civ 751 is a UK company law case concerning the strict prohibition on any possibility of a conflict of interest between a company director's duty to promote her company's success and her own gain.

Contents

Facts

Allied Business & Financial Consultants Ltd was a small company, with its office above the Charles Dickens pub at 160 Union Street in Southwark. The directors were former Bank of Ireland employees, who had set up the company in 1988, and included Ms O'Donnell and Mr Shanahan who were both directors. Ms O'Donnell had fallen out with the other members allegedly after (among other things) Mr Shanahan had diverted a property investment opportunity - to buy an interest in the fifth floor of Aria House, above the Playhouse Theatre, 23 Craven Street, near Embankment - to one of his own companies. Ms O'Donnell contended that this diversion was a breach of Mr Shanahan's duty as a director to act without any possibility of a conflict of interest, and because Allied Business Ltd could possibly have taken the opportunity, she was in her interests as a member unfairly prejudiced (under Companies Act 1985, section 459, now Companies Act 2006, s 994). She requested that her shares be bought out at a fair value.

Judgment

High Court

Richard Sheldon QC held, based on the old case of Aas v Benham [1891] 2 Ch 244 that the particular opportunity taken up by Mr Shanahan's company fell outside the scope of Allied's business. Therefore, there was no conflict of interest, and no breach of the no profit rule.

Court of Appeal

Waller LJ, Rimer LJ and Aikens LJ reversed the High Court and allowed the unfair prejudice petition to proceed. In this particular case it was clear that Mr Shanahan had acted without the company's fully informed consent. The opportunity had come to Mr Shanahan in his capacity as a director of Allied Business Ltd, and so must in principle be accountable for any profit. Aas was distinguishable as a case of partnership, where the business relationship had been circumscribed by contract.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of directors</span> Type of governing body for an organisation

A board of directors is an executive committee that jointly supervises the activities of an organization, which can be either a for-profit or a nonprofit organization such as a business, nonprofit organization, or a government agency.

<i>Canadian Aero Service Ltd v OMalley</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O'Malley, [1974] SCR 592, is a leading civil case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on corporate director and officer liability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English trust law</span> Creation and protection of asset funds

English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts. Although people are generally free to set the terms of trusts in any way they like, there is a growing body of legislation to protect beneficiaries or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and Charities Act 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Consumption of feces

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<i>Keech v Sandford</i> English trusts law case

Keech v Sandford[1726] EWHC J76 is a foundational case, deriving from English trusts law, on the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It concerns the law of trusts and has affected much of the thinking on directors' duties in company law. It holds that a trustee owes a strict duty of loyalty so that there can never be a possibility of any conflict of interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom company law</span> Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

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.

O'Neill v Phillips[1999] UKHL 24 is a UK company law case on an action for unfair prejudice under s.459 Companies Act 1985. It is the only case thus far in the House of Lords on the provision and it deals with the concept of members of a business having their "legitimate expectations" disappointed.

<i>Rock (Nominees) Ltd v RCO Holdings Ltd</i>

Rock Nominees Ltd v RCO (Holdings) plc[2004] EWCA Civ 118 is a UK company law case dealing with unfair prejudice under section 459 Companies Act 1985. It was decided at first instance by Peter Smith J.

<i>Boardman v Phipps</i>

Boardman v Phipps [1966] UKHL 2 is a landmark English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

<i>Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant</i> 2007 company law case in the United Kingdom

Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant[2007] EWCA Civ 200 is a 2007 UK company law case, concerning the fiduciary duty of directors to avoid conflicts of interest. It follows some considerable unrest in the courts about the strictness of the law relating to taking corporate opportunities.

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>Bhullar v Bhullar</i> UK company law case

Bhullar v Bhullar[2003] EWCA Civ 424, 2 BCLC 241 is a leading UK company law case on the principle that directors must avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest, particular relating to corporate opportunities. It was not decided under, but is relevant to, section 175 of the Companies Act 2006.

<i>Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd</i>

Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd[2004] EWHC 1056 (Ch) is a UK company law case, which concerns a claim for unfair prejudice and raised the question of barring a claim if attempted to recover for reflective loss. The case is a notable precedent because it makes clear that a nominee shareholder is also a legitimate petitioner for unfair prejudice.

R&B Customs Brokers Co. Ltd. v. United Dominions Trust Ltd. [1987] EWCA Civ 3 is an English contract law case, concerning unfair terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

<i>CMS Dolphin Ltd v Simonet</i>

CMS Dolphin Ltd v Simonet [2001] EWHC Ch 415 is a UK company law case concerning directors' duties.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian corporate law</span>

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

<i>Oldham v Kyrris</i>

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.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i>

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.

References