9. Directors and secretary

2020 ◽  
pp. 63-85
Author(s):  
J. Scott Slorach ◽  
Jason Ellis

This chapter considers the law relating to company officers. This is a combination of statute, common law, and regulations under a company’s articles of association. The discussions cover the division of powers within a company; appointment of directors, managing directors, alternate directors, and shadow directors; retirement of directors; removal of directors from office; powers of directors; directors’ duties; statutory controls on directors; the directors and protection of outsiders; and the company secretary.

Business Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 62-84
Author(s):  
J. Scott Slorach ◽  
Jason Ellis

This chapter considers the law relating to company officers. This is a combination of statute, common law, and regulations under a company’s articles of association. The discussions cover the division of powers within a company; appointment of directors, managing directors, alternate directors, and shadow directors; retirement of directors; removal of directors from office; powers of directors; directors’ duties; statutory controls on directors; the directors and protection of outsiders; and the company secretary.


Author(s):  
J. Scott Slorach ◽  
Jason Ellis

This chapter considers the law relating to company officers. This is a combination of statute, common law, and regulations under a company’s articles of association. The discussions cover the division of powers within a company; appointment of directors, managing directors, alternate directors, and shadow directors; retirement of directors; removal of directors from office; powers of directors; directors’ duties; statutory controls on directors; the directors and protection of outsiders; and the company secretary.


Author(s):  
J. Scott Slorach ◽  
Jason Ellis

This chapter considers the law relating to company officers. This is a combination of statute, common law, and regulations under a company’s articles of association. The discussions cover the division of powers within a company; appointment of directors, managing directors, alternate directors, and shadow directors; retirement of directors; removal of directors from office; powers of directors; directors’ duties; statutory controls on directors; the directors and protection of outsiders; and the company secretary.


2019 ◽  
pp. 64-86
Author(s):  
J. Scott Slorach ◽  
Jason Ellis

This chapter considers the law relating to company officers. This is a combination of statute, common law, and regulations under a company’s articles of association. The discussions cover the division of powers within a company; appointment of directors, managing directors, alternate directors, and shadow directors; retirement of directors; removal of directors from office; powers of directors; directors’ duties; statutory controls on directors; the directors and protection of outsiders; and the company secretary.


1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 921-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson E. Enonchong

It is generally accepted that, in actions in personam, the foundation of the court's jurisdiction at common law is the service of process.1 To this extent the rules as to service define the limits of the court's jurisdiction. So, for a claimant to establish the jurisdiction of the English court over an overseas company2 he must be able to serve process on the company in accordance with the rules of service. The general rule is that an overseas company, like an individual, may be served with process in England if present within the jurisdiction.3 However, since a company is only a legal (not natural) person, it cannot be present in the same way as an individual. It has therefore been necessary for special rules to be laid down by which it can be determined whether or not an overseas company is present in England and therefore may be served with process here. Before 1992 those rules were contained in sections 691 and 695 of the Companies Act 19854 (the pre-1992 regime). However, in 1992 the law was amended and a separate provision was laid down in section 694A of the Companies Act 1985 to regulate the service of process on any overseas company with a branch in Great Britain (the 1992 regime).


1938 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-326
Author(s):  
Lord Wright

The case of Sinclair v. Brougham has been generally regarded as an authority of first-rate importance. I think it has been properly so regarded, though my reasons for so thinking may not altogether agree with the reasons emphasized by some lawyers. I regard the case as primarily significant as embodying the leading principles on which the Court acts in exercising its equitable jurisdiction to give relief in order to prevent unjust enrichment, or to achieve restitution, if we accept the useful term which has been employed in the recently published American Restatement of the Law of Restitution. The word itself is only an echo of language which will be found in English judgments, indeed, in this very case of Sinclair v. Brougham. The case shows how the Court can do justice by applying equitable principles where the Common Law would have been powerless. But since every Court is now bound in the same proceeding to apply either law or equity or both as the circumstances may require, the distinction between law and equity is now only important in the sense that the differences of method and rules must be observed. In the case we are considering a company had borrowed money for purposes for which it was ultra vires for it to borrow. There could in law be no claim for money lent and no claim in law for the repayment on the ground of quasi-contract or, to use the now obsolete phrase, contract ‘implied in law’, because to allow such a claim as a merely money claim would be to sanction an evasion of the public policy forbidding ultra vires borrowing by companies. Further, as the money lent or its products could not be identified in the company's possessions, a claim in law could not be maintained. But the powers of the Court were not exhausted. The problem was further complicated by the conflicting claims of the shareholders.


2019 ◽  
pp. 143-159
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the law governing company directors and shareholders. The common law duties on directors have been codified and expanded through the Companies Act (CA) 2006. Directors are responsible to the company itself, not to individual shareholders. Minority protection (of shareholders) is provided through the CA 2006 to restrict directors’ acts that may unfairly disadvantage them. Public companies must have a company secretary and they must satisfy statutory requirements in relation to their qualifications. Shareholders have no automatic right of management in the company although, through attendance and the rights to vote at shareholder meetings, they may have influence over the business conducted.


Author(s):  
Mike McConville ◽  
Luke Marsh

The chapter explains the formal division of powers in the British state: the power of Parliament to make and develop the law; the power of the judiciary to interpret the law; and the power of the executive to implement the law. Under this constitutional arrangement, the three branches should, in general, be independent of each other. The judiciary in England and Wales advance their claim to independence through adherence to the rule of law and declarations of impartiality and incorruptibility. Utilizing archival data drawn from Home Office files, it examines the validity of these claims through various rules, including the Judges’ Rules, plea bargaining (or state-induced guilty pleas), and the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR), which have regulated the boundaries between citizens and the state in criminal matters. Mindful of the strengths and limitations of archival data, it sets out the principal theme of the book: that the executive has secretly interfered with the judicial role while concurrently deceiving Parliament; the judiciary, for its part, under executive threats and persuasion, jettisoning common law principles leading, in the modern-era, to judicial and state policy going hand in hand with further impact upon former colonial territories.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawzia Cassim ◽  
Nomulelo Queen Mabeka

Civil procedure enforces the rules and provisions of civil law.  The law of civil procedure involves the issuing, service and filing of documents to initiate court proceedings in the superior courts and lower courts. Indeed, notice of legal proceedings is given to every person to ensure compliance with the audi alteram partem maxim (“hear the other side”). There are various rules and legislation that regulate these court proceedings such as inter alia, the Superior Courts Act, 2013, Uniform Rules of Court, Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 2012 and the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944. The rules of court are binding on a court by virtue of their nature.  The purpose of these rules is to facilitate inexpensive and efficient legislation. However, civil procedure does not only depend on statutory provisions and the rules of court.  Common law also plays a role. Superior Courts are said to exercise inherent jurisdiction in that its jurisdiction is derived from common law.  It is noteworthy that whilst our rules of court and statutes are largely based on the English law, Roman-Dutch law also has an impact on our procedural law. The question thus arises, how can our law of civil procedure transform to accommodate elements of Africanisation as we are part and parcel of the African continent/diaspora? In this regard, the article examines the origins of Western-based civil procedure, our formal court systems, the impact of the Constitution on traditional civil procedure, the use of dispute resolution mechanisms in Western legal systems and African culture, an overview of the Traditional Courts Bill of 2012 and the advent of the Traditional Courts Bill of 2017. The article also examines how the contentious Traditional Courts Bills of 2012 and 2017 will transform or complement the law of civil procedure and apply in practice once it is passed into law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document