SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 11
Download to read offline
0
2013
LAW 603
MALAYSIAN COMPANY LAW
ASSIGNMENT
NAME : NURUL NAJWA BINTI MOHD ZAIDI
ID : 2011172581
GROUP: BC 4C
PREPARED FOR : MR MUHAMMAD UMAR BIN ABDUL RAZAK
DATE OF SUBMISSION: DECEMBER 6, 2013
1
QUESTION
Past year question April 2011 (Q5)
Briefly explain all of the following
a) Doctrine of Ultra Vires
b) Rule in Foss v Harbottle and its exceptions
c) Rule in RBB v Turquand and its exceptions
2
DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES
The most important part in the memorandum is the object clause since it sets out those acts
which the company has capacity to undertake. However, any acts which are not specified in
its object clause in the MOA of the company or in other words acts which fall outside the
scope of powers defined in the object clause are considered as ultra vires.
Under common law, an act or transaction that was ultra vires was void and did not bind the
company. Furthermore, it cannot be ratified by common consent of the shareholder to
validate it and make it binding to the company.
As stated in the case of Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co Riche1
, the MOA of the
company gave it the powers to make and sell railway carriages and wagons. The directors
then entered into a contract on behalf of the company to purchase a concession for
constructing a railway in Belgium. The shareholder ratified the director‟s action. When the
company refused to proceed with the contract, the vendor then sued for breach of contract.
The question before the court was whether this contract was valid, or if not, could it be
ratified by the shareholders. The court held that the contract was not within the company‟s
objects and therefore, was void. Moreover, the shareholder could not ratify the contract and
validate it, as this would be allowing the shareholders by unanimous consent to do the very
thing that prohibited by the law.
In other case of Re Jon Beauforte (London) Ltd, a company was incorporated to carry on
the business of tailors and manufacturers of clothes and materials. It then decided to carry
on an activity outside its object that is to manufacture veneered panels. The company
ordered coke on the company letter head which stated that the company was a
manufacturer of veneered panels. The company however, failed to pay. The supplier of the
coke then sought to enforce payment of the debt. The court held that the action failed as the
contract was ultra vires. The company did not have power to manufacture veneered panels.
This was despite the fact that the coke could have been used for the authorised purpose of
manufacture of clothes. The question arose as to whether an act, that is within the powers of
the company but which is entered into in furtherance of some purpose that is not authorised
by the MOA, is ultra vires or not. One view said that such an act would be ultra vires as it
can be seen in the decided case of Re Introduction Ltd. At first, the company started as a
company offering services to tourist attending the festival of Britain in 1951. It then switches
to pig breeding which obviously something outside of its object of the company. The
1
(1875) LR 7 HL 653
3
company then borrowed some amount of money from a bank for its pig breeding business.
There were a specific clause in which enables the company to borrow money.
However, the court of Appeal held that this clause was a power and not an independent
object. As a power had to be employed for the legitimate purpose of the company, it was
held the borrowing were ultra vires. The transactions were entered into for the purpose of the
business that was not authorised by the MOA at all.
The other view said that such an act would not be ultra vires. Only acts beyond the capacity
of the company could be characterised as ultra vires. This was illustrated in the case of
Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corporation that was held that it is
not rendered ultra vires merely because it is entered into in furtherance of a purpose that is
not authorized so long as it is within the power of the company.
In the case of Christchurch City Corp v Flamingo Coffee Lounge Ltd, the company
originally conducted a business in the textile industry then changed its name and applied for
the government concession to operate a restaurant in an airport. The object clause of the
company allowed the conduct of textile business and included the power to acquire any
government concession it thought desirable. The concluding paragraph of the object clause
specified that all its objects were independent. The court held that the company had capacity
to gain the government concession for the airport restaurant so the activity considered as not
ultra vires.
The main advantage or purpose of this common law provision regarding ultra vires act was
to award protection to shareholders and creditors against any misuse of their investment
money. This was so because when the ultra vires activities are void and not binding, the
company only restricted to conduct activities which only stated in the object clause in which
all members and creditors aware of. Basically, the shareholders and creditors have the right
to expect their money that they invested would only be used for the object specified in MOA.
However, there was also disadvantage of the doctrine of ultra vires since it will affect the
third parties dealing with the company. Unfortunately, they could not take any action against
the company for breach of ultra vires contract as portrayed in Ashbury and Jon Beauforte
cases.
In Malaysia, Section 20 of the Companies Act had modified the common law principle of the
doctrine of ultra vires as in S20(1) stated that “No act or purported act of the company.. and
no conveyance or transfer of property, whether real or personal, to or by the company shall
4
be invalid by the reason only of the fact that the company without capacity or power to do
such an act or to execute or take conveyance or transfer”.2
The effect of this provision is that even though an act is ultra vires it may be valid and
binding upon the company. This state of law has been considered in several cases in
Malaysia. As in the case of Public Bank Bhd. V Metro Construction Sdn.Bhd , the court
held that even assuming the third party charges created by the directors of the defendant
company were considered as ultra vires, they could be saved by S20(1). Upon this, the court
went to on hold that S20(1) abolishes the otherwise rigorous effect of ultra vires doctrine.
Another case of Ahmad Zaini Jafar v TL Offshore Sdn Bhd was held that even if the
transaction between the parties were ultra vires, which actually was not the case, pursuant
to S20(1) of the Act, the transaction would still be valid and binding on the defendant.
Based on the S20(1) and the stated cases above, it demonstrate that the significance
protection to the shareholders and creditors under common law has been reduced to
balance the effect and give fair treatment to the third parties. They can now sue the
company for breach of ultra vires contracts and no longer need to concern themselves
whether an act is within the capacity of the company or not since an ultra vires act is a valid
transaction. However, S20(3) provided that if the act is yet to be performed, the court has
power to restrain its performance by granting an injunction and order compensation for loss
sustained by either party.
2
Companies Act 1965 (ACT 125)
5
RULE IN FOSS v HARBOTTLE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS
In this case, some shareholders of the company attempted to sue the directors and certain
other shareholders for mismanaging and misapplied the company‟s property. However, the
action then was dismissed on procedural grounds and two rules were properly laid down by
the court.
The first rule set up from the case of Foss v Harbottle3
is the proper plaintiff rule where the
proper plaintiff for a wrong done to the company is the company itself. This rule also can be
applied if the company want to recover money or damage alleged to be done to the
company. The action should prima facie be brought by the company itself as the company in
law is a separate legal entity from its members so, the company needs to uphold it own
rights. Here, the company is considered as the proper plaintiff.
Second rule is majority rule which can be understood as if the majority can do something,
the minority cannot interfere. In other words, all depends to the majority of the company; no
member can take any legal action against the company if majority decide not to take any
action. Where the majority does not wish the company to sue, the court will not generally
permit the minority to sue on its behalf or interfere in the internal management of the
company.
This rule has been used in the case of Pavlides v Jensen. In this case, a minority
shareholder brought an action for damages against three directors and against the company
itself on the ground that they had been negligent in selling a mine owned by the company at
an under value. It was then held that the action was not maintainable. The judge said that it
was open to the company, of a resolution of a majority of the shareholder to sell the mine at
the price decided by the company in that manner, and it was open to the company by a vote
of majority to decide that if the director by their negligence or error of judgement had sold the
company‟s mine at an under value, proceeding should not be taken against the directors.
The advantage of the rule is of course to prevent multiplicity of action and to prevent
unnecessary litigation. These principle, however, produce an unfair or unsatisfactory result
to the minority. Therefore, there are a number of exceptions under which the minority
shareholders are allowed to bring action against the majority.
The first exception to the rule of Foss v Harbottle is when the acts of the company are ultra
vires. For this exception, if the is outside their object, illegal or ultra vires, the company or
any individual members can sue because the act itself cannot be confirmed by the majority.
3
(1843) 2 Hare 461
6
Here, the minority members may sue to restraint the company from performing ultra vires or
illegal activities. As portrayed in the case if Simpson v Westminster Palace Hotel Co, a
minority argued that a decision to lease a major portion of the hotel as offices was not within
the objects of the hotel company and therefore claimed to be an ultra vires act. The court
held that a single member can maintain a suit for declaration. In Malaysia, however, this
exception is no longer of much significant. An action to restraint ultra vires act would not be
prevented by the rule in Foss v Harbottle because in such case the member could be suing
to enforce his own personal right under S20. Company‟s incapacity may only be raised in
proceeding against the company to restraint an ultra vires transaction; S20 (2) (a) but the
power to restraint is lost of the transaction is wholly executed; S20 (2) (b).
Infringement of member‟s personal rights is the second exception to the rule. The AOA or
Act may grant to each member personal rights and he can use his rights almost as a form of
property for instance his right to vote and variation of class right under Section 65. These
personal rights cannot generally be ousted by the rule in Foss v Harbottle. If these rights
were infringed by the controllers of the company, members are entitled to bring action
against them. For example, a member is given right to vote by the articles and the controllers
of the company try to deny the right, that member can bring action to enforce it personally
rather than on the company‟s behalf to protect its constitution.
In the case of Pender v Lushington, the AOA provided that members were entitled to only
one vote for every company share held, up to a maximum 100 votes. A member, who held
the large number of shares, knowing this restriction on voting, transferred his number of
shares to Pender, who was to vote in accordance with the transferor‟s direction. At the
general meeting of the company, Pender‟s votes were disallowed. This resulted in the
passing of resolution for which he would not have voted had his votes been counted. Pender
then brought an action against the directors to overturn the disallowances of his vote and to
restraint them from acting on the resolution. The court upheld his right to bring an action and
decided that he came within an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle because he was
enforcing his personal right conferred on all members to have their vote counted.
As in other case of Boschock Prop Co v Fuke, the court allowed a minority to enforce his
right to have dividends paid in accordance with the AOA and in the case of Bailie v Oriental
Telephone & Electric Co, court held that minority can enforce their right to have proper
notice of meeting.
The third exception is that acts requiring special majority. When the transaction is outside
the scope of the articles and can, therefore only be authorized by special resolution
according to S31(1) to alter the AOA, or if for any other reason it requires a special majority
7
to sanction it, non compliance of this requirement by the majority give a right to bring an
action. In the decided case of Quin v Axtens Ltd v Salmon, the court held that an ordinary
resolution to authorise a sale of company‟s property is ineffective because the AOA
prohibited disposal without the consent of the P. The only course open to the company was
a special resolution to amend the AOA before they could validly dispose any property and
this was not done. P was allowed to take action.
Other case of Edward v Halliwell4
, the constitution of a trade union provided that alteration
of the contributions of employed members could only be made by a ballot vote of the
members and ¾ majorities must be obtained. During the Second World War, a meeting of
the union was made and a resolution increasing the amount of contributions was passed
without taking a ballot and without obtaining ¾ majorities. Two members of the union sued
for a declaration that the resolution is invalid. The defence was that the rule in Foss v
Harbottle debarred the members from taking action.The defence was rejected and the court
held that the resolution was invalid. The rights infringed were individual membership rights.
The ¾ majority requirement also has not been complied with and for that reason, the rule in
Foss v Harbottle did not apply, the individual members were entitled to sue.
Last but not least, the fourth exception is regarding fraud on minority. Fraud has broader
meaning than under the law of Tort. Fraud in the context of „fraud on minority‟ means an
abuse power whereby the majority secures an unfair gain at the expense of the minority, the
injured party need not actually be the minority shareholders, but may also be the company
itself. In other words, the minority or company was affected either directly or indirectly by the
decision taken by the controlling majority. In Abdul Rahim Bin Aki v Krubong Industrial
Park (Melaka) Sdn Bhd5
, Gopal Sri Ram made up the following points in relation to fraud on
minority which are „Fraud on minority‟ is a term of art and has absolutely nothing whatsoever
to do with actual fraud or deception at common law, it is not necessary to prove dishonesty
before a minority shareholder may claim relief under the exception and it is sufficient for a
plaintiff to show that the majority had abused their power vested in them in the sense that
they used their power for a collateral purpose and not for the true purpose for which such
powers were granted.
As for the last exception, fraud on minority has been held to have been present in cases
regarding expropriation of the company‟s money, property or opportunities, majority
obtaining a benefit at the expense of the company, preventing an action being brought and
expropriation of member‟s property.
4
(1950) 2 All EER 1064
5
(1995) 3 MLJ 417
8
RULE IN RBB v TURQUAND AND ITS EXCEPTIONS
In this case, the Directors of a Company issued a bond to the Royal British Bank. The AOA
of the company stated that they had the power to do so, if authorised by the general
resolution of the company. The company claimed that there was no resolution passed
authorising the issue of the bond and that therefore the company was not liable. The Court
held that the company was entitled to sue on the bond. As the requirement for the resolution
was a matter of internal regulation for the company and the Bank could not know whether
such resolution had in fact been passed, it was entitled to presume that the resolution had
indeed been passed. The rule is also known as the Indoor Management rule as the
exception to the doctrine of constructive notice.
The rule in Turquand'6
s case is a presumption of regularity. In other words, a person dealing
with the company is entitled to presume that all the internal procedures of the company have
been complied with. This is a practical approach to solving problems facing outsiders
because an outsider would have difficulty to discover what is going on in the company. This
case law principle protects innocent parties who are doing business with the company and
are not in a position to know if some internal rule has not been complied with.
In a decided case of British Thomson-Houston Co Ltd v Federated European Bank Ltd,
a company whose business extended to the giving of guarantees was sued on a guarantee
signed by only one of its directors. The board was authorised by the AOA to delegate its
power to one of the four directors. It was held that, the rule in Turquand‟s case covered the
assumed authority of the one director to sign the guarantee on behalf of the company. It is
the same as illustrated in Public Bank Bhd v Metro Construction Sdn Bhd, court held that
the bank was able to rely on the rule in Turquand‟s case. It was found that the two directors
who had executed the charge instruments and the affixing of the seal of the company was
authorised by its MOA.
Another case of Sin Chia v Pahang Lin Siong Motor Co Ltd, three directors of the D
approached and obtained a loan of RM5,000 from the P. As a security, P was given two
post-dated cheques of the D. The post dated cheque was dishonoured upon presentation for
payment. In an action for the recovery of the loan, the D denied liability on the ground that it
had not authorised the loan. The court held that whatever internal arrangements there were
between the members of the company was no concern of the P and the P was required to
inquire into the regularity of the internal proceeding of the company. D was liable for the loan
as the directors were authorised to negotiate for the loan.
6
Section 133 (a),(b),(c)
9
There were three exceptions to the rule in RBB v Turquand as the first one is persons acting
in a good faith. This exception only can be applied if the person who is the injured party
deals with the company in a good faith. To make him available to use this exception, he
must not receive the notice of lack of authority of the agent; otherwise he may lose his right
to invoke the rule to his advantage.
In Howard v Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co7
, Article 95 of the company‟s AOA provided
that the directors were empowered to borrow from time to time on behalf of the company
sums of money not exceeding ₤1000 at any one time. The directors lent money to the
company in excess of the amount as provided in the AOA. The directors then brought an
action to recover the loan. It was held that the loan was only valid to the extent of not more
than ₤1000. The directors must be taken to know that the internal requirements of the
company had not been observed, he could not rely upon the indoor management rule.
Another exception to the Turquand‟s rule is inquiry. This can be applied where a person
contracting with a company does not have actual knowledge of the irregularity, he may not
rely on the rule in Turquand‟s case if he was put, as a reasonable man, on enquiry which he
has failed to make.
In B Liggett (Liverpool) Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd, the AOA of the P conferred on the
directors the power to appoint an additional director. At all time, the original directors were
Liggett and Melia and they were authorised to operate the bank account of the P. Liggett
was in the habit of issuing cheques signed by himself, which Melia countersign at the bank
subsequently. In July 1925, Melia instructed the bank not to pay cheques unless they were
signed by him. In September 1925, Liggett as chairman notified the bank that his wife had
been appointed as additional director and the bank honoured cheques signed by Mr and Mrs
Liggett. The P then sued the bank for paying these cheques without authority and the bank‟s
defence was based on the rule in Turquand‟s case. Court held that the bank was liable as
they were put on inquiry and they failed to carry on proper enquiry.
The last exception which can be found is fraud. As a matter of general principles, a company
may not be bound by a forged document even though the person who took it believed that it
was issued under proper authority of the company. As cited in the case of Ruben v Great
Fingall Consolidated8
, a share certificate procured by a secretary with the forged signature
of a director was held not binding on the company in favour of a person who relied on the
certificate for its apparent genuineness.
7
Che Wan Development Sdn Bhd v Co-operative Central Bank Bhd (1989) 3 MLJ 40, Dart Sum Timber (Pte) Ltd
v Bank of Canton (1982) 2 MLJ 101
8
Section 133A (2)
10
As for the conclusion, it is important know whether the outsiders know or not about the
internal regulations of the company at the first place. If the answer is yes, they should bear
the responsibility and the other way round.

More Related Content

What's hot

Land Law II notes - For Revision Purposes Only
Land Law II notes - For Revision Purposes OnlyLand Law II notes - For Revision Purposes Only
Land Law II notes - For Revision Purposes OnlyAzrin Hafiz
 
parol evidence rule and collateral contract
parol evidence rule and collateral contractparol evidence rule and collateral contract
parol evidence rule and collateral contractNur Farhana Ana
 
Concept Bare trust and Stakeholder
Concept Bare trust and StakeholderConcept Bare trust and Stakeholder
Concept Bare trust and StakeholderNur Farhana Ana
 
LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014
LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014
LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014xareejx
 
TORT II [occupier's liability notes]
TORT II [occupier's liability notes]TORT II [occupier's liability notes]
TORT II [occupier's liability notes]Amalia Sulaiman
 
UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)
UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)
UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)Wei Lie Lim
 
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOMPOSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOMASMAH CHE WAN
 
Lien and lien holder's caveat
Lien and lien holder's caveatLien and lien holder's caveat
Lien and lien holder's caveatHafizul Mukhlis
 
Company Law I - Pre-incorporation Contract
Company Law I - Pre-incorporation ContractCompany Law I - Pre-incorporation Contract
Company Law I - Pre-incorporation Contractsurrenderyourthrone
 
character evidence in Malaysia
character evidence in Malaysiacharacter evidence in Malaysia
character evidence in MalaysiaIntan Muhammad
 
Land Law 1 slides LAROW
Land Law 1 slides LAROWLand Law 1 slides LAROW
Land Law 1 slides LAROWxareejx
 
Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2
Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2
Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2xareejx
 

What's hot (20)

Land Law II notes - For Revision Purposes Only
Land Law II notes - For Revision Purposes OnlyLand Law II notes - For Revision Purposes Only
Land Law II notes - For Revision Purposes Only
 
parol evidence rule and collateral contract
parol evidence rule and collateral contractparol evidence rule and collateral contract
parol evidence rule and collateral contract
 
charges 4
charges 4 charges 4
charges 4
 
Breach of trust
Breach of trust Breach of trust
Breach of trust
 
Concept Bare trust and Stakeholder
Concept Bare trust and StakeholderConcept Bare trust and Stakeholder
Concept Bare trust and Stakeholder
 
LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014
LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014
LAND LAW 1 Forfeiture 2014
 
TORT II [occupier's liability notes]
TORT II [occupier's liability notes]TORT II [occupier's liability notes]
TORT II [occupier's liability notes]
 
Jual janji
Jual janjiJual janji
Jual janji
 
UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)
UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)
UNL1622 – CONTRACT LAW II (REMOTENESS)
 
Partners and Outsiders
Partners and OutsidersPartners and Outsiders
Partners and Outsiders
 
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOMPOSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
 
Lien and lien holder's caveat
Lien and lien holder's caveatLien and lien holder's caveat
Lien and lien holder's caveat
 
Company Law I - Pre-incorporation Contract
Company Law I - Pre-incorporation ContractCompany Law I - Pre-incorporation Contract
Company Law I - Pre-incorporation Contract
 
Charitable trust
Charitable trustCharitable trust
Charitable trust
 
character evidence in Malaysia
character evidence in Malaysiacharacter evidence in Malaysia
character evidence in Malaysia
 
Implied terms
Implied termsImplied terms
Implied terms
 
Land Law 1 slides LAROW
Land Law 1 slides LAROWLand Law 1 slides LAROW
Land Law 1 slides LAROW
 
Equity and land law (Topic 2)
Equity and land law (Topic 2)Equity and land law (Topic 2)
Equity and land law (Topic 2)
 
Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2
Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2
Ll1 slides extent of ownership and enjoyment of land part 2
 
FAMILY LAW - PROMISE TO MARRY
FAMILY LAW - PROMISE TO MARRYFAMILY LAW - PROMISE TO MARRY
FAMILY LAW - PROMISE TO MARRY
 

Viewers also liked

Foss vs harbottle
Foss vs harbottleFoss vs harbottle
Foss vs harbottleantuvane
 
Free and open source software for development
Free and open source software for developmentFree and open source software for development
Free and open source software for developmentVictor van R
 
Oppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholders
Oppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholdersOppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholders
Oppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholdersShobhit Tiwari
 
Indoor management 1
Indoor management 1Indoor management 1
Indoor management 1Ashok Jain
 
Company law member and membership rights Part B
Company law member and membership rights Part BCompany law member and membership rights Part B
Company law member and membership rights Part BNelfi Amiera Mizan
 
Doctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor ManagementDoctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor Managementameer ahmad
 
Legal personality in Company Law
Legal personality in Company Law Legal personality in Company Law
Legal personality in Company Law Nur Farhana Ana
 
Doctrine of ultra vires
Doctrine of ultra viresDoctrine of ultra vires
Doctrine of ultra viresIndrajith Kr
 
Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)
Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)
Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)Sandeep Kumar
 
Ultravires. cons.notice & indoor
Ultravires. cons.notice & indoorUltravires. cons.notice & indoor
Ultravires. cons.notice & indoorvideoaakash15
 
Fair Value In Corporate & Shareholder Litigation
Fair Value In Corporate & Shareholder LitigationFair Value In Corporate & Shareholder Litigation
Fair Value In Corporate & Shareholder Litigationbsteffen
 
Company law, power point presentation
Company law, power point presentationCompany law, power point presentation
Company law, power point presentationMadhu Jana
 
Companies act,2013 ii chapter
Companies act,2013 ii chapterCompanies act,2013 ii chapter
Companies act,2013 ii chapterKrishan Singla
 
Incoporation of company
Incoporation of companyIncoporation of company
Incoporation of companyMd Daulat
 
Answering Techniques During Exam
Answering Techniques During ExamAnswering Techniques During Exam
Answering Techniques During ExamDamansara
 
Association Law - Minority
Association Law - MinorityAssociation Law - Minority
Association Law - MinorityLolaa Azhar
 
Company law member and membership rights Part A
Company law  member and membership rights    Part ACompany law  member and membership rights    Part A
Company law member and membership rights Part ANelfi Amiera Mizan
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Foss vs harbottle
Foss vs harbottleFoss vs harbottle
Foss vs harbottle
 
Free and open source software for development
Free and open source software for developmentFree and open source software for development
Free and open source software for development
 
Oppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholders
Oppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholdersOppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholders
Oppression of minority shareholders by majority shareholders
 
Indoor management 1
Indoor management 1Indoor management 1
Indoor management 1
 
Company law member and membership rights Part B
Company law member and membership rights Part BCompany law member and membership rights Part B
Company law member and membership rights Part B
 
Doctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor ManagementDoctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor Management
 
Oppression and Management
Oppression and ManagementOppression and Management
Oppression and Management
 
Legal personality in Company Law
Legal personality in Company Law Legal personality in Company Law
Legal personality in Company Law
 
Doctrine of ultra vires
Doctrine of ultra viresDoctrine of ultra vires
Doctrine of ultra vires
 
Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)
Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)
Ppt on incorporation of company as per new company act, 2013 (updated)
 
Company law ppt
Company law pptCompany law ppt
Company law ppt
 
Corp Law Sem
Corp Law SemCorp Law Sem
Corp Law Sem
 
Ultravires. cons.notice & indoor
Ultravires. cons.notice & indoorUltravires. cons.notice & indoor
Ultravires. cons.notice & indoor
 
Fair Value In Corporate & Shareholder Litigation
Fair Value In Corporate & Shareholder LitigationFair Value In Corporate & Shareholder Litigation
Fair Value In Corporate & Shareholder Litigation
 
Company law, power point presentation
Company law, power point presentationCompany law, power point presentation
Company law, power point presentation
 
Companies act,2013 ii chapter
Companies act,2013 ii chapterCompanies act,2013 ii chapter
Companies act,2013 ii chapter
 
Incoporation of company
Incoporation of companyIncoporation of company
Incoporation of company
 
Answering Techniques During Exam
Answering Techniques During ExamAnswering Techniques During Exam
Answering Techniques During Exam
 
Association Law - Minority
Association Law - MinorityAssociation Law - Minority
Association Law - Minority
 
Company law member and membership rights Part A
Company law  member and membership rights    Part ACompany law  member and membership rights    Part A
Company law member and membership rights Part A
 

Similar to Assignment law 603

MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION  AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION  AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...Anushka Singh
 
Company Assess work Dennis 2
Company Assess work Dennis 2Company Assess work Dennis 2
Company Assess work Dennis 2Dennis Chung
 
Law of assiciation i assignment
Law of assiciation i assignmentLaw of assiciation i assignment
Law of assiciation i assignmentFAROUQ
 
IM-75-BC.pptx
IM-75-BC.pptxIM-75-BC.pptx
IM-75-BC.pptxkishay1
 
The Pros And Cons Of Tort Law
The Pros And Cons Of Tort LawThe Pros And Cons Of Tort Law
The Pros And Cons Of Tort LawMichelle Davis
 
Companies and creditor.docx1
Companies and creditor.docx1Companies and creditor.docx1
Companies and creditor.docx1kenyatajomo
 
Separate Legal Entity CA2016.pptx
Separate Legal Entity CA2016.pptxSeparate Legal Entity CA2016.pptx
Separate Legal Entity CA2016.pptxScholarsAssist1
 
Doctrine of constructive notice
Doctrine of constructive noticeDoctrine of constructive notice
Doctrine of constructive noticeDr. Arun Verma
 
Memorandum and articles of association
Memorandum and articles of associationMemorandum and articles of association
Memorandum and articles of associationchetankotian
 
Doctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor ManagementDoctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor ManagementMrinali Kaul
 
Liability of Directors for a Company's Breach of Contract
Liability of Directors for a Company's Breach of ContractLiability of Directors for a Company's Breach of Contract
Liability of Directors for a Company's Breach of ContractAbraham Vergis
 
Doctrine of constructive notice ppt
Doctrine of constructive notice pptDoctrine of constructive notice ppt
Doctrine of constructive notice pptseemamahajan11
 
Corporate criminal liability
Corporate criminal liabilityCorporate criminal liability
Corporate criminal liabilityAbhijith S R
 
Doctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veil
Doctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veilDoctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veil
Doctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veilGurpreet Chahal
 

Similar to Assignment law 603 (20)

company law assignment
company law assignmentcompany law assignment
company law assignment
 
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION  AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION  AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WITH DOCTRINE OF ULTRA...
 
Company Assess work Dennis 2
Company Assess work Dennis 2Company Assess work Dennis 2
Company Assess work Dennis 2
 
Law of assiciation i assignment
Law of assiciation i assignmentLaw of assiciation i assignment
Law of assiciation i assignment
 
IM-75-BC.pptx
IM-75-BC.pptxIM-75-BC.pptx
IM-75-BC.pptx
 
The Pros And Cons Of Tort Law
The Pros And Cons Of Tort LawThe Pros And Cons Of Tort Law
The Pros And Cons Of Tort Law
 
Business Law Contracts Essay
Business Law Contracts EssayBusiness Law Contracts Essay
Business Law Contracts Essay
 
Companies and creditor.docx1
Companies and creditor.docx1Companies and creditor.docx1
Companies and creditor.docx1
 
Separate Legal Entity CA2016.pptx
Separate Legal Entity CA2016.pptxSeparate Legal Entity CA2016.pptx
Separate Legal Entity CA2016.pptx
 
Doctrine of constructive notice
Doctrine of constructive noticeDoctrine of constructive notice
Doctrine of constructive notice
 
Memorandum and articles of association
Memorandum and articles of associationMemorandum and articles of association
Memorandum and articles of association
 
Doctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor ManagementDoctrine of Indoor Management
Doctrine of Indoor Management
 
TC12 ACCOUNTING JUNE-2012
TC12 ACCOUNTING JUNE-2012TC12 ACCOUNTING JUNE-2012
TC12 ACCOUNTING JUNE-2012
 
Lifting of the veil : Fraud exception
Lifting of the veil : Fraud exceptionLifting of the veil : Fraud exception
Lifting of the veil : Fraud exception
 
Liability of Directors for a Company's Breach of Contract
Liability of Directors for a Company's Breach of ContractLiability of Directors for a Company's Breach of Contract
Liability of Directors for a Company's Breach of Contract
 
Company Law Essay
Company Law EssayCompany Law Essay
Company Law Essay
 
Doctrine of constructive notice ppt
Doctrine of constructive notice pptDoctrine of constructive notice ppt
Doctrine of constructive notice ppt
 
Corporate criminal liability
Corporate criminal liabilityCorporate criminal liability
Corporate criminal liability
 
Tc12 ad14
Tc12 ad14Tc12 ad14
Tc12 ad14
 
Doctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veil
Doctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veilDoctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veil
Doctrine of indoor management and piercing of corporate veil
 

Recently uploaded

The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateBTL Law P.C.
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Dr. Oliver Massmann
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...Anadi Tewari
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsAurora Consulting
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsSyedaAyeshaTabassum1
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfNo One
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...SHRADDHA PANDIT
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.mike689707
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditSHRADDHA PANDIT
 

Recently uploaded (10)

The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a TemplateThe Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
The Ultimate Guide to Drafting Your Separation Agreement with a Template
 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or the EU Supply Chai...
 
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
ArtificiaI Intelligence based Cyber Forensic Tools: Relevancy and Admissibili...
 
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future SolutionsPatents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
Patents and AI: Current Tools, Future Solutions
 
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business RegulationsClassification of Contracts in Business Regulations
Classification of Contracts in Business Regulations
 
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False ConfessionsCriminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
Criminalizing Disabilities & False Confessions
 
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdfIslamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
Islamabad High Court Judges wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council.pdf
 
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
Women and the World of Climate Change- A Conceptual Foundation by Shraddha Pa...
 
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
xLran: Open source AI for legal hackers.
 
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha PanditAn introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
An introduction to Indian Contract Act, 1872 by Shraddha Pandit
 

Assignment law 603

  • 1. 0 2013 LAW 603 MALAYSIAN COMPANY LAW ASSIGNMENT NAME : NURUL NAJWA BINTI MOHD ZAIDI ID : 2011172581 GROUP: BC 4C PREPARED FOR : MR MUHAMMAD UMAR BIN ABDUL RAZAK DATE OF SUBMISSION: DECEMBER 6, 2013
  • 2. 1 QUESTION Past year question April 2011 (Q5) Briefly explain all of the following a) Doctrine of Ultra Vires b) Rule in Foss v Harbottle and its exceptions c) Rule in RBB v Turquand and its exceptions
  • 3. 2 DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES The most important part in the memorandum is the object clause since it sets out those acts which the company has capacity to undertake. However, any acts which are not specified in its object clause in the MOA of the company or in other words acts which fall outside the scope of powers defined in the object clause are considered as ultra vires. Under common law, an act or transaction that was ultra vires was void and did not bind the company. Furthermore, it cannot be ratified by common consent of the shareholder to validate it and make it binding to the company. As stated in the case of Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co Riche1 , the MOA of the company gave it the powers to make and sell railway carriages and wagons. The directors then entered into a contract on behalf of the company to purchase a concession for constructing a railway in Belgium. The shareholder ratified the director‟s action. When the company refused to proceed with the contract, the vendor then sued for breach of contract. The question before the court was whether this contract was valid, or if not, could it be ratified by the shareholders. The court held that the contract was not within the company‟s objects and therefore, was void. Moreover, the shareholder could not ratify the contract and validate it, as this would be allowing the shareholders by unanimous consent to do the very thing that prohibited by the law. In other case of Re Jon Beauforte (London) Ltd, a company was incorporated to carry on the business of tailors and manufacturers of clothes and materials. It then decided to carry on an activity outside its object that is to manufacture veneered panels. The company ordered coke on the company letter head which stated that the company was a manufacturer of veneered panels. The company however, failed to pay. The supplier of the coke then sought to enforce payment of the debt. The court held that the action failed as the contract was ultra vires. The company did not have power to manufacture veneered panels. This was despite the fact that the coke could have been used for the authorised purpose of manufacture of clothes. The question arose as to whether an act, that is within the powers of the company but which is entered into in furtherance of some purpose that is not authorised by the MOA, is ultra vires or not. One view said that such an act would be ultra vires as it can be seen in the decided case of Re Introduction Ltd. At first, the company started as a company offering services to tourist attending the festival of Britain in 1951. It then switches to pig breeding which obviously something outside of its object of the company. The 1 (1875) LR 7 HL 653
  • 4. 3 company then borrowed some amount of money from a bank for its pig breeding business. There were a specific clause in which enables the company to borrow money. However, the court of Appeal held that this clause was a power and not an independent object. As a power had to be employed for the legitimate purpose of the company, it was held the borrowing were ultra vires. The transactions were entered into for the purpose of the business that was not authorised by the MOA at all. The other view said that such an act would not be ultra vires. Only acts beyond the capacity of the company could be characterised as ultra vires. This was illustrated in the case of Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corporation that was held that it is not rendered ultra vires merely because it is entered into in furtherance of a purpose that is not authorized so long as it is within the power of the company. In the case of Christchurch City Corp v Flamingo Coffee Lounge Ltd, the company originally conducted a business in the textile industry then changed its name and applied for the government concession to operate a restaurant in an airport. The object clause of the company allowed the conduct of textile business and included the power to acquire any government concession it thought desirable. The concluding paragraph of the object clause specified that all its objects were independent. The court held that the company had capacity to gain the government concession for the airport restaurant so the activity considered as not ultra vires. The main advantage or purpose of this common law provision regarding ultra vires act was to award protection to shareholders and creditors against any misuse of their investment money. This was so because when the ultra vires activities are void and not binding, the company only restricted to conduct activities which only stated in the object clause in which all members and creditors aware of. Basically, the shareholders and creditors have the right to expect their money that they invested would only be used for the object specified in MOA. However, there was also disadvantage of the doctrine of ultra vires since it will affect the third parties dealing with the company. Unfortunately, they could not take any action against the company for breach of ultra vires contract as portrayed in Ashbury and Jon Beauforte cases. In Malaysia, Section 20 of the Companies Act had modified the common law principle of the doctrine of ultra vires as in S20(1) stated that “No act or purported act of the company.. and no conveyance or transfer of property, whether real or personal, to or by the company shall
  • 5. 4 be invalid by the reason only of the fact that the company without capacity or power to do such an act or to execute or take conveyance or transfer”.2 The effect of this provision is that even though an act is ultra vires it may be valid and binding upon the company. This state of law has been considered in several cases in Malaysia. As in the case of Public Bank Bhd. V Metro Construction Sdn.Bhd , the court held that even assuming the third party charges created by the directors of the defendant company were considered as ultra vires, they could be saved by S20(1). Upon this, the court went to on hold that S20(1) abolishes the otherwise rigorous effect of ultra vires doctrine. Another case of Ahmad Zaini Jafar v TL Offshore Sdn Bhd was held that even if the transaction between the parties were ultra vires, which actually was not the case, pursuant to S20(1) of the Act, the transaction would still be valid and binding on the defendant. Based on the S20(1) and the stated cases above, it demonstrate that the significance protection to the shareholders and creditors under common law has been reduced to balance the effect and give fair treatment to the third parties. They can now sue the company for breach of ultra vires contracts and no longer need to concern themselves whether an act is within the capacity of the company or not since an ultra vires act is a valid transaction. However, S20(3) provided that if the act is yet to be performed, the court has power to restrain its performance by granting an injunction and order compensation for loss sustained by either party. 2 Companies Act 1965 (ACT 125)
  • 6. 5 RULE IN FOSS v HARBOTTLE AND ITS EXCEPTIONS In this case, some shareholders of the company attempted to sue the directors and certain other shareholders for mismanaging and misapplied the company‟s property. However, the action then was dismissed on procedural grounds and two rules were properly laid down by the court. The first rule set up from the case of Foss v Harbottle3 is the proper plaintiff rule where the proper plaintiff for a wrong done to the company is the company itself. This rule also can be applied if the company want to recover money or damage alleged to be done to the company. The action should prima facie be brought by the company itself as the company in law is a separate legal entity from its members so, the company needs to uphold it own rights. Here, the company is considered as the proper plaintiff. Second rule is majority rule which can be understood as if the majority can do something, the minority cannot interfere. In other words, all depends to the majority of the company; no member can take any legal action against the company if majority decide not to take any action. Where the majority does not wish the company to sue, the court will not generally permit the minority to sue on its behalf or interfere in the internal management of the company. This rule has been used in the case of Pavlides v Jensen. In this case, a minority shareholder brought an action for damages against three directors and against the company itself on the ground that they had been negligent in selling a mine owned by the company at an under value. It was then held that the action was not maintainable. The judge said that it was open to the company, of a resolution of a majority of the shareholder to sell the mine at the price decided by the company in that manner, and it was open to the company by a vote of majority to decide that if the director by their negligence or error of judgement had sold the company‟s mine at an under value, proceeding should not be taken against the directors. The advantage of the rule is of course to prevent multiplicity of action and to prevent unnecessary litigation. These principle, however, produce an unfair or unsatisfactory result to the minority. Therefore, there are a number of exceptions under which the minority shareholders are allowed to bring action against the majority. The first exception to the rule of Foss v Harbottle is when the acts of the company are ultra vires. For this exception, if the is outside their object, illegal or ultra vires, the company or any individual members can sue because the act itself cannot be confirmed by the majority. 3 (1843) 2 Hare 461
  • 7. 6 Here, the minority members may sue to restraint the company from performing ultra vires or illegal activities. As portrayed in the case if Simpson v Westminster Palace Hotel Co, a minority argued that a decision to lease a major portion of the hotel as offices was not within the objects of the hotel company and therefore claimed to be an ultra vires act. The court held that a single member can maintain a suit for declaration. In Malaysia, however, this exception is no longer of much significant. An action to restraint ultra vires act would not be prevented by the rule in Foss v Harbottle because in such case the member could be suing to enforce his own personal right under S20. Company‟s incapacity may only be raised in proceeding against the company to restraint an ultra vires transaction; S20 (2) (a) but the power to restraint is lost of the transaction is wholly executed; S20 (2) (b). Infringement of member‟s personal rights is the second exception to the rule. The AOA or Act may grant to each member personal rights and he can use his rights almost as a form of property for instance his right to vote and variation of class right under Section 65. These personal rights cannot generally be ousted by the rule in Foss v Harbottle. If these rights were infringed by the controllers of the company, members are entitled to bring action against them. For example, a member is given right to vote by the articles and the controllers of the company try to deny the right, that member can bring action to enforce it personally rather than on the company‟s behalf to protect its constitution. In the case of Pender v Lushington, the AOA provided that members were entitled to only one vote for every company share held, up to a maximum 100 votes. A member, who held the large number of shares, knowing this restriction on voting, transferred his number of shares to Pender, who was to vote in accordance with the transferor‟s direction. At the general meeting of the company, Pender‟s votes were disallowed. This resulted in the passing of resolution for which he would not have voted had his votes been counted. Pender then brought an action against the directors to overturn the disallowances of his vote and to restraint them from acting on the resolution. The court upheld his right to bring an action and decided that he came within an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle because he was enforcing his personal right conferred on all members to have their vote counted. As in other case of Boschock Prop Co v Fuke, the court allowed a minority to enforce his right to have dividends paid in accordance with the AOA and in the case of Bailie v Oriental Telephone & Electric Co, court held that minority can enforce their right to have proper notice of meeting. The third exception is that acts requiring special majority. When the transaction is outside the scope of the articles and can, therefore only be authorized by special resolution according to S31(1) to alter the AOA, or if for any other reason it requires a special majority
  • 8. 7 to sanction it, non compliance of this requirement by the majority give a right to bring an action. In the decided case of Quin v Axtens Ltd v Salmon, the court held that an ordinary resolution to authorise a sale of company‟s property is ineffective because the AOA prohibited disposal without the consent of the P. The only course open to the company was a special resolution to amend the AOA before they could validly dispose any property and this was not done. P was allowed to take action. Other case of Edward v Halliwell4 , the constitution of a trade union provided that alteration of the contributions of employed members could only be made by a ballot vote of the members and ¾ majorities must be obtained. During the Second World War, a meeting of the union was made and a resolution increasing the amount of contributions was passed without taking a ballot and without obtaining ¾ majorities. Two members of the union sued for a declaration that the resolution is invalid. The defence was that the rule in Foss v Harbottle debarred the members from taking action.The defence was rejected and the court held that the resolution was invalid. The rights infringed were individual membership rights. The ¾ majority requirement also has not been complied with and for that reason, the rule in Foss v Harbottle did not apply, the individual members were entitled to sue. Last but not least, the fourth exception is regarding fraud on minority. Fraud has broader meaning than under the law of Tort. Fraud in the context of „fraud on minority‟ means an abuse power whereby the majority secures an unfair gain at the expense of the minority, the injured party need not actually be the minority shareholders, but may also be the company itself. In other words, the minority or company was affected either directly or indirectly by the decision taken by the controlling majority. In Abdul Rahim Bin Aki v Krubong Industrial Park (Melaka) Sdn Bhd5 , Gopal Sri Ram made up the following points in relation to fraud on minority which are „Fraud on minority‟ is a term of art and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with actual fraud or deception at common law, it is not necessary to prove dishonesty before a minority shareholder may claim relief under the exception and it is sufficient for a plaintiff to show that the majority had abused their power vested in them in the sense that they used their power for a collateral purpose and not for the true purpose for which such powers were granted. As for the last exception, fraud on minority has been held to have been present in cases regarding expropriation of the company‟s money, property or opportunities, majority obtaining a benefit at the expense of the company, preventing an action being brought and expropriation of member‟s property. 4 (1950) 2 All EER 1064 5 (1995) 3 MLJ 417
  • 9. 8 RULE IN RBB v TURQUAND AND ITS EXCEPTIONS In this case, the Directors of a Company issued a bond to the Royal British Bank. The AOA of the company stated that they had the power to do so, if authorised by the general resolution of the company. The company claimed that there was no resolution passed authorising the issue of the bond and that therefore the company was not liable. The Court held that the company was entitled to sue on the bond. As the requirement for the resolution was a matter of internal regulation for the company and the Bank could not know whether such resolution had in fact been passed, it was entitled to presume that the resolution had indeed been passed. The rule is also known as the Indoor Management rule as the exception to the doctrine of constructive notice. The rule in Turquand'6 s case is a presumption of regularity. In other words, a person dealing with the company is entitled to presume that all the internal procedures of the company have been complied with. This is a practical approach to solving problems facing outsiders because an outsider would have difficulty to discover what is going on in the company. This case law principle protects innocent parties who are doing business with the company and are not in a position to know if some internal rule has not been complied with. In a decided case of British Thomson-Houston Co Ltd v Federated European Bank Ltd, a company whose business extended to the giving of guarantees was sued on a guarantee signed by only one of its directors. The board was authorised by the AOA to delegate its power to one of the four directors. It was held that, the rule in Turquand‟s case covered the assumed authority of the one director to sign the guarantee on behalf of the company. It is the same as illustrated in Public Bank Bhd v Metro Construction Sdn Bhd, court held that the bank was able to rely on the rule in Turquand‟s case. It was found that the two directors who had executed the charge instruments and the affixing of the seal of the company was authorised by its MOA. Another case of Sin Chia v Pahang Lin Siong Motor Co Ltd, three directors of the D approached and obtained a loan of RM5,000 from the P. As a security, P was given two post-dated cheques of the D. The post dated cheque was dishonoured upon presentation for payment. In an action for the recovery of the loan, the D denied liability on the ground that it had not authorised the loan. The court held that whatever internal arrangements there were between the members of the company was no concern of the P and the P was required to inquire into the regularity of the internal proceeding of the company. D was liable for the loan as the directors were authorised to negotiate for the loan. 6 Section 133 (a),(b),(c)
  • 10. 9 There were three exceptions to the rule in RBB v Turquand as the first one is persons acting in a good faith. This exception only can be applied if the person who is the injured party deals with the company in a good faith. To make him available to use this exception, he must not receive the notice of lack of authority of the agent; otherwise he may lose his right to invoke the rule to his advantage. In Howard v Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co7 , Article 95 of the company‟s AOA provided that the directors were empowered to borrow from time to time on behalf of the company sums of money not exceeding ₤1000 at any one time. The directors lent money to the company in excess of the amount as provided in the AOA. The directors then brought an action to recover the loan. It was held that the loan was only valid to the extent of not more than ₤1000. The directors must be taken to know that the internal requirements of the company had not been observed, he could not rely upon the indoor management rule. Another exception to the Turquand‟s rule is inquiry. This can be applied where a person contracting with a company does not have actual knowledge of the irregularity, he may not rely on the rule in Turquand‟s case if he was put, as a reasonable man, on enquiry which he has failed to make. In B Liggett (Liverpool) Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd, the AOA of the P conferred on the directors the power to appoint an additional director. At all time, the original directors were Liggett and Melia and they were authorised to operate the bank account of the P. Liggett was in the habit of issuing cheques signed by himself, which Melia countersign at the bank subsequently. In July 1925, Melia instructed the bank not to pay cheques unless they were signed by him. In September 1925, Liggett as chairman notified the bank that his wife had been appointed as additional director and the bank honoured cheques signed by Mr and Mrs Liggett. The P then sued the bank for paying these cheques without authority and the bank‟s defence was based on the rule in Turquand‟s case. Court held that the bank was liable as they were put on inquiry and they failed to carry on proper enquiry. The last exception which can be found is fraud. As a matter of general principles, a company may not be bound by a forged document even though the person who took it believed that it was issued under proper authority of the company. As cited in the case of Ruben v Great Fingall Consolidated8 , a share certificate procured by a secretary with the forged signature of a director was held not binding on the company in favour of a person who relied on the certificate for its apparent genuineness. 7 Che Wan Development Sdn Bhd v Co-operative Central Bank Bhd (1989) 3 MLJ 40, Dart Sum Timber (Pte) Ltd v Bank of Canton (1982) 2 MLJ 101 8 Section 133A (2)
  • 11. 10 As for the conclusion, it is important know whether the outsiders know or not about the internal regulations of the company at the first place. If the answer is yes, they should bear the responsibility and the other way round.