Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co (1907) Ltd
 |
It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, redirecting, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it. The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 04:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC). Find sources: "Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co (1907) Ltd" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR Nominator: Please consider notifying the author/project: {{subst:proposed deletion notify|Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co (1907) Ltd|concern=Tagged as unreferenced for 8 months, but this actually been unsourced for 16 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. We are not a Gilbert's or Kaplan.}} ~~~~ |
Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co (1907) Ltd [1920] 2 Ch 124 is a UK company law case concerning amendment of the articles of association.
Facts
[edit]Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd was a shareholder in Llanelly Steel Co. Llanelly realised that Dafen were buying steel from an alternative source of supply, and also to buy up the company's shares (an attempt which failed). Llanelly responded by altering its articles through a special resolution to include a power to compulsorily purchase the shares of any member requested to transfer them. Dafen Tinplate argued the alteration was invalid.
Judgment
[edit]The court held that the alteration was too wide to be valid. The altered article would confer too much power on the majority. It went much further than was necessary for the protection of the company. The judge seemed to be using the bona fide for the benefit of the company test in an objective sense, that is, he was judging the situation from the courts point of view.
See also
[edit]- Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd [1900] 1 Ch 656
- Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co [1919] 1 Ch 290
- Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co Ltd [1920] 1 Ch 154
- Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co (Maidenhead) [1927] 1 Ch 154
- Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701
- Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286
Notes
[edit].svg){kind=small}  | This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information. |
