Court order for relief under s.994

This is the ting that matter, but if you got majority of shareholder has diverted the properties to themselves and leaving the company a empty shell. There is not much point in doing so.

Just petition for to the court in s.994

It has to show some unfairness by an objective standard.

Applying it in Ebrahimi v Westbourne galleryThe unfair conduct of the company did affect Ebrahimi as a director rather than a shareholder.

He was succeeded in just and equitable winding up.

The crucial thing the conduct of the company affects the petitioner qua member.

However, in a small company the shareholder also take up the job as a director and earn their income as a director with dividend from the share is unlikely to be earned. Kicking him out of the office may in effect affect his interest as a member.

It must be specii

65% of s.994 are Ebrahimi type where the person was kick out of the board.

Majority buying out must be pro rata net access value.

Wind up => selling the company assetUnfair => buy out

Disagreed argument between two RE company case, Hoffman said director/member can be affected by the fact that ceased to be director can be unfairly prejudiced as the member.

In Grantchester => the accept selling as market price

Has HL narrow the scope of the s.994 jurisdictionHoffman is a pro director judge, however, he did, in o’neil is pro SH decision.

In Re A Company (no.00477 of 1986)Applied this

The step he might take to prtexc