26:
252:
company, a resolution that the rights of the company should be disregarded in the matter would amount to forfeiting the interest and property of the minority of shareholders in favour of the majority, and that by the votes of those who are interested in securing the property for themselves. Such use of voting power has never been sanctioned by the Courts
251:
it appears quite certain that directors holding a majority of votes would not be permitted to make a present to themselves. This would be to allow a majority to oppress the minority....if directors have acquired for themselves property or rights which they must be regarded as holding on behalf of the
245:
deliberately designed to exclude and used their influence and position to exclude, the company whose interest it was their first duty to protect... the benefit of such contract... must be regarded as held on behalf of the company... quite certain that directors holding a majority of votes would not
221:
branch) in their own names. They then passed a shareholder resolution declaring that the company had no interest in the contract. Cook claimed that the contract did belong to the
Toronto Construction Co and the shareholder resolution ratifying their actions should not be valid because the three
581:
234:
advised that the three directors had breached their duty of loyalty to the company, that the shareholder ratification was a fraud on Mr Cook as a minority shareholder, and invalid. Giving the advice,
407:
209:. The first three directors wanted to exclude Cook from the business. Each held a quarter of the company's shares. GM Deeks, GS Deeks, and Hinds took a contract with the
246:
be able to make a present to themselves. This would be to allow a majority to oppress the minority... Such use of voting power has never been sanctioned by the court.
282:
235:
103:
586:
497:
238:
held the result was that the profits made on the contractual opportunity were to be held on trust for the
Toronto Construction Co.
231:
159:
36:
395:
311:
419:
347:
299:
275:
591:
205:
The
Toronto Construction Co. had four directors, GM Deeks, GS Deeks, Hinds, and Cook. It helped in the construction of
107:
210:
371:
185:, even when decided under the law of another member of the Commonwealth, this decision has been followed in the
268:
186:
197:
section 175, with a failure to have ratification of breach by independent shareholders under section 239.
541:
469:
431:
359:
206:
214:
80:
443:
155:
163:
147:
8:
487:
459:
143:
65:
473:
194:
483:
455:
323:
218:
501:
383:
99:
95:
522:
511:
190:
182:
167:
151:
575:
181:
Because decisions of the
Judicial Committee have persuasive value in the
260:
582:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada
171:
170:, on appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
175:
25:
193:, the case would now be seen as falling within the
573:
276:
154:, concerning the illegitimate diversion of a
132:Corporate opportunity, conflict of interest
283:
269:
24:
498:Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc
241:Lord Buckmaster said that the three had,
222:directors used their votes to carry it.
47:A. B. Cook v George S. Deeks and others
290:
160:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
37:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
574:
396:Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd
312:Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers
560:North-West Transportation Co v Beatty
264:
420:Re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd
236:The Lord Chancellor, Lord Buckmaster
348:Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co
300:The Charitable Corporation v Sutton
13:
14:
603:
211:Canadian Pacific Railway Company
587:United Kingdom company case law
372:Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver
535:
408:Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd
1:
553:
213:(for building a line at the
7:
543:Willers v Joyce and another
256:
225:
10:
608:
592:1916 in Canadian case law
508:
494:
480:
470:CMS Dolphin Ltd v Simonet
466:
452:
440:
428:
416:
404:
392:
380:
368:
356:
344:
332:
320:
308:
296:
131:
126:
118:
113:
104:Lord Parker of Waddington
91:
86:
76:
71:
60:
52:
42:
32:
23:
18:
528:
360:Re Smith and Fawcett Ltd
200:
158:. It was decided by the
150:case, relevant also to
81:Ontario Court of Appeal
432:Re D’Jan of London Ltd
254:
248:
562:(1887) 12 App Cas 589
546:, UKSC 44, para. 12.
444:Re Barings plc (No 5)
249:
243:
187:United Kingdom courts
156:corporate opportunity
315:(1854) 1 Macq HL 461
164:court of last resort
148:Canadian company law
291:Director duty cases
162:, at that time the
207:railways in Canada
195:Companies Act 2006
122:Lord Buckmaster LC
96:Lord Buckmaster LC
518:
517:
484:Bhullar v Bhullar
456:Peskin v Anderson
324:Percival v Wright
136:
135:
599:
547:
539:
384:IDC Ltd v Cooley
303:(1742) 26 ER 642
285:
278:
271:
262:
261:
100:Viscount Haldane
87:Court membership
56:23 February 1916
28:
16:
15:
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
598:
597:
596:
572:
571:
566:Burland v Earle
556:
551:
550:
540:
536:
531:
519:
514:
504:
490:
476:
462:
448:
436:
424:
412:
400:
388:
376:
364:
352:
340:
328:
316:
304:
292:
289:
259:
228:
215:Guelph Junction
203:
106:
102:
98:
12:
11:
5:
605:
595:
594:
589:
584:
570:
569:
563:
555:
552:
549:
548:
533:
532:
530:
527:
526:
525:
523:UK company law
516:
515:
512:UK company law
509:
506:
505:
495:
492:
491:
481:
478:
477:
474:EWHC (Ch) 4159
467:
464:
463:
453:
450:
449:
441:
438:
437:
429:
426:
425:
417:
414:
413:
405:
402:
401:
393:
390:
389:
381:
378:
377:
369:
366:
365:
357:
354:
353:
345:
342:
341:
333:
330:
329:
321:
318:
317:
309:
306:
305:
297:
294:
293:
288:
287:
280:
273:
265:
258:
255:
227:
224:
202:
199:
191:UK company law
183:United Kingdom
168:British Empire
152:UK company law
134:
133:
129:
128:
124:
123:
120:
116:
115:
111:
110:
93:
92:Judges sitting
89:
88:
84:
83:
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
43:Full case name
40:
39:
34:
30:
29:
21:
20:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
604:
593:
590:
588:
585:
583:
580:
579:
577:
567:
564:
561:
558:
557:
545:
544:
538:
534:
524:
521:
520:
513:
507:
503:
500:
499:
493:
489:
486:
485:
479:
475:
472:
471:
465:
461:
458:
457:
451:
446:
445:
439:
434:
433:
427:
422:
421:
415:
410:
409:
403:
398:
397:
391:
386:
385:
379:
374:
373:
367:
362:
361:
355:
350:
349:
343:
338:
337:
331:
326:
325:
319:
314:
313:
307:
302:
301:
295:
286:
281:
279:
274:
272:
267:
266:
263:
253:
247:
242:
239:
237:
233:
232:Privy Council
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
198:
196:
192:
188:
184:
179:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
142:
141:
130:
125:
121:
117:
114:Case opinions
112:
109:
105:
101:
97:
94:
90:
85:
82:
79:
77:Appealed from
75:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
38:
35:
31:
27:
22:
17:
565:
559:
542:
537:
496:
488:EWCA Civ 424
482:
468:
460:EWCA Civ 326
454:
442:
430:
418:
406:
394:
382:
375:1 All ER 378
370:
358:
346:
336:Cook v Deeks
335:
334:
322:
310:
298:
250:
244:
240:
229:
204:
180:
140:Cook v Deeks
139:
138:
137:
72:Case history
46:
19:Cook v Deeks
166:within the
119:Decision by
108:Lord Sumner
64:1 AC 554,
576:Categories
554:References
447:1 BCLC 433
435:1 BCLC 561
387:1 WLR 443
363:1 Ch 304
339:1 AC 554
327:2 Ch 421
257:See also
226:Decision
219:Hamilton
127:Keywords
61:Citation
502:UKSC 71
172:Ontario
144:UKPC 10
66:UKPC 10
53:Decided
423:Ch 164
411:Ch 477
399:AC 821
351:Ch 407
189:. In
176:Canada
568:AC 83
529:Notes
201:Facts
146:is a
33:Court
510:see
230:The
217:and
578::
178:.
174:,
284:e
277:t
270:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
