All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Chancery Division, Norris J, 16 October 2013)
The petitioner and the second respondent, who each held one share in the company, had had a personal relationship which came to an end. The petitioner presented a winding-up petition on the grounds that it was just and equitable that the company be wound up because its affairs had been conducted in a way that was unfairly prejudicial to her or that her relationship with the second respondent that was reflected in the company's constitution was now gone.
The court refused to make a winding-up order on the petition because although it was just and equitable that the company be wound up, the petitioner had an alternative remedy open to her; as a shareholder and director of the company, the petitioner had the right to demand repayment to her of her interest in a directors' loan account, following which she was bound to transfer her shareholding to the second respondent.
"BPIR is an excellent series, of interest to both corporate and personal insolvency lawyers,...