Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd 1946 The facts: The company had two classes of ordinary shares, 50p shares and 10p shares. share into five 2s shares. Mallard wanted to sell controlling stake to outsider. The persons voting for a special resolution are not required to dissociate themselves from their own prospects and consider what is for the benefit of the company as a going concern. The perspective of the hypothetical shareholder test Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer, [1959] A.C. 324, refd to. does not seem to work in this case as there are clearly two opposing interests. 19-08 (2019), 25 Pages , (d) If the directors shall be unable within one month after receipt of the transfer notice to find a purchaser for all or any of the shares among the members of the company, the selling member may sell such shares as remain unsold to any person though not a member of the company at any price but subject to the right of the directors (without assigning any reason) to refuse registration of the transfer when the proposed transferee is a person of whom they do not approve, or where the shares comprised in the transfer are shares on which the company has a lien.. . Swinburne University of Technology Malaysia, Diploma in Accountancy / Financial Accounting (ACC110), Fundamentals o entrepreneurship (ENT 300), English for Critical Academic Readding (ELC501), Philosophy And Current Issues (BLHW 1762), Partnership and Company Law I (UUUK 3053), Partnership and Company Law II (UUUK 3063), Business Organisation & Management (BBDM1023), Informative Speech ELC590 AS251 1D2- Giovanni Dalton, Equity and Trusts II - Trustees (Powers and Duties), Chapter Two - betrothal and promise to marry. Get Access. Facts of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd. Arderne Cinemas Ltd had issued ordinary shares of 10s and other ordinary shares of 2s, The company had two classes of shares; one class was worth ten shilling a share and the other class worth two shilling a share. Corporate Governance - Role of Board of Directors. The fraud must be one of the majority on the minority.]. This is termed oppression of the minority by the majority. But this resolution provides that anybody who wants at any time to sell his shares can now go direct to an outsider, provided that there is an ordinary resolution of the company approving the proposed transferee. Mr Greenhalgh wished to prevent control of the company going away, and argued that the article change was invalid, a fraud on him and the other minority shareholders, and asked for compensation. 7 Northwest Transportation Company v. Neatty (1887) 12 App. Mr Mallard had a controlling interest in Arderne Cinemas Ltd. selling shares to someone who was not an existing member as long as there was The judge held that the defendant Mallard had not been guilty of deliberate dishonesty, and dismissed the action. For the past is what man should not have been. Mr. Jennings had, early in his argument, formulated his grounds for bad faith against the defendant Mallard at greater length, and I need not, I think, go through the several heads. That was the substance of what was suggested. The Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [ 13] is a United Kingdom law case in which it is argued that if the effect of the alteration is to deliberately make evident discrimination between the majority and minority shareholders of the corporation, with the objective of giving the majority members a relative advantage, the alteration should then be Directors statutory duty to exercise their powers in the best interests of the corporation (company) can be found in s 181(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). By using A Hiker Walks 15 Km Towards The North Then 16 Km T Chegg, pengaruh bahasa asing kepada bahasa melayu, LAB REPORT Basic physical measurements & Uncertainty ODL, Automotive Technology Engineering Internship Report, Accounting Business Reporting for Decision Making, 1 - Business Administration Joint venture. The company still remain what the articles stated, a right to have one vote per share pari In the first place, I think it is now plain that bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole means not two things but one thing. 30 This approach is given especial emphasis when relief is sought by summary proceedings in a winding up, under the Companies Act 1948, s. 333, or the equivalent section in earlier Acts: . On numerous occasions the courts, both in the United Kingdom and Australia, have held that there it is also a common law duty for directors to exercise their powers in the best interests of the corporation as a whole and that the corporation means the corporators (shareholders) as a general body. The cases to which Mr. Jennings referred are Sidebottom v. Kershaw, Leese & Co. Ld. in the interests of the company as a whole, and there are, as Mr. Jennings has urged, two distinct approaches. For advice please consult a solicitor. Bank of Montreal v. forced to sell shares to Greenhalgh under constitutional provision. On the footing that that resolution had been passed, it was proposed to pass an ordinary resolution sanctioning the transfer of 500 shares to the purchaser. | Web Design: MAFULUL AND OTHERS V. BITRUS TAKWEN & OTHERS, ALHAJI ISA NOEKOER V. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE AND OTHERS, ALHAJI KAMORU AGBAJE AND OTHERS v. MISS. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd - There were only 2 shareholders where Mr Mallard wanted to sell - Studocu NONE greenhalgh arderne cinemas ltd issue whether whether the majority had abused their power? Jennings, K.C., and Lindner For The Plaintiff. Related. A special resolution may be impeached if its effect is to discriminate between the majority shareholders and the minority shareholders so as to give to the former an advantage of which the latter are deprived. MATH1013; CGE1000 Tutorial 2 Worksheets 2017-2018; STAT2601 B (18-19, 2nd) Chapter 10; project mangerment . Clinical Examination: a Systematic Guide to Physical Diagnosis (Nicholas J. Talley; Simon O'Connor), Diseases of Ear, Nose and Throat (P L Dhingra; Shruti Dhingra), Lecture Notes: Ophthalmology (Bruce James; Bron), Clinical Medicine (Parveen J. Kumar; Michael L. Clark), Little and Falace's Dental Management of the Medically Compromised Patient (James W. Little; Donald Falace; Craig Miller; Nelson L. Rhodus), Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (Murray Longmore; Ian Wilkinson; Andrew Baldwin; Elizabeth Wallin), Browse's Introduction to the Symptoms and Signs of Surgical Disease (John Black; Kevin Burnand), Gynaecology by Ten Teachers (Louise Kenny; Helen Bickerstaff), Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design (Richard Budynas; Keith Nisbett), Apley's Concise System of Orthopaedics and Fractures, Third Edition (Louis Solomon; David J. Warwick; Selvadurai Nayagam), Essential Surgery (Clive R. G. Quick; Joanna B. Reed), Law of Torts in Malaysia (Norchaya Talib), Apley's System of Orthopaedics and Fractures, Ninth Edition (Louis Solomon; David Warwick; Selvadurai Nayagam), Equity and Trusts II - Trustees (Powers and Duties), Swinburne University of Technology Malaysia, Introduction in Financial Accounting (ACC 106), Prinsiple of Business Accounting (ACC 2211), Literature Of The Romantic Age (ACGB6305), Penghayatan Etika dan Peradaban (MPU3152), Partnership and Company Law I (UUUK 3053), Partnership and Company Law II (UUUK 3063), Business Organisation & Management (BBDM1023), Implikasi Dasar Penggunaan Bahasa Inggeris dalam Pengajaran Sains dan Matematik Terhadap Perkembangan Pendidikan Negara, Lab Report Experiment Determination of ash, PHY2820 Sugar Metabolism Worksheet (2018 ), Tugasan Kertas Kerja- Konsep Etika Dan Peradaban Menurut Perspektif Islam Dan Barat, Conclusion of unemployment in india with asean, Accounting Business Reporting for Decision Making, 1 - Business Administration Joint venture. Chapter 2 Version control Date:26-Mar-1726-Feb-17 Time: 12:19 PM8:01 AM Chapter 7 - The significance of the regulation of corporate governance and the importance of the C, a member of company, challenged this. [para. v. Llanelly Steel Co. (1907), Ld. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another: ComC 22 May 2020, Redwood Master Fund Ltd and Others v TD Bank Europe Ltd and Others, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. The defendants appreciated this and set up the defence that their action was for the benefit of the company. Company law - Private company - Articles restricting transfer of shares to members - Majority resolution authorizing sales to strangers - Validity - Whether resolution passed bona fide for . It is multi-segment free access center for intelligence and instruments relating to Nigeria's legal and policy circuit. Christie, K.C., and Hector Hillaby for the defendants other than the defendant Mallard were not called on to argue. Mr Greenhalgh had the previous two shilling shares, and lost control of the company. MBANEFO AND ANOTHER. benefit of the company or not. Malaysia position: The Companies Act 1965 did not permit the class rights to be varied, unless The court has to consider whether what has been done is for the benefit of all the shareholders and therefore of the company as a whole: see Buckleys Law of Companies (12th ed. (on equal footing) with the ordinary shares issued. In this article, the focus will be on these phrases and the aim is to establish whether these phrases create potentially competing duties for directors. The company changed its articles by special resolution in general meeting allowing existing shareholders to offer any shares to person/members outside the company. Several other third party interests are represented in the corporation as a separate legal entity and it will depend on the particular circumstances to what extent these interests need to be considered when directors fulfil their duties towards the corporation. Although I follow the point, and it might perhaps have been possible to do it the other way, I think that this case is very far removed from the type of case in which what is proposed, as in the Dafen case (7), is to give a majority the right to expropriate a minority shareholder, whether he wanted to sell or not, merely on the ground that the majority shareholders wanted the minority mans shares. In my opinion, in spite of all these complexities, this was, in substance, an offer by an outside man to buy the shares of this company at 6s. (b) hereof. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1946 Greenhalgh was a minority shareholder in Arderne Cinemas and was in a protracted battle to prevent majority shareholder, Mr Mallard selling control. divided into 21,000 preference shares of 10s. The court always takes the view that the duty to act in good faith in the best interests of the company means that the directors must act in the interests of the shareholders as a collective group as illustrated in the Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd. 12 Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd. [1951]Google Scholar Ch. Mr Greenhalgh argued that the voting rights attached to his shares were varied without Port Line Ltd v Ben Line Steamers Ltd [1958] 2 Q.B. Cookie Settings. Mr Mallard Evershed, M.R., Asquith and Jenkins, L.JJ. Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd. tells us that when shareholders are considering the company "as a whole" they are not meant to consider the company as a commercial entity. It covers laws, regulations, standards, judgments, directories, publications, and so onRead More, Phone Numbers Du Plessis, Jean, Directors' Duty to Act in the Best Interests of the Corporation: 'Hard Cases Make Bad Law' (Feb 01, 2019). MIS revision notes - Summary Managing Business Information Systems & Applications; Chapter 5; AMA 1500 Assignment 1 solution; Case Brief - Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd; Eie3311 2017 Lab1; LLAW 2014 Land Law II notes; Trending. Sidebottom v. Kershaw, Leese & Co. Ld. In Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1946] CA the company had issued ordinary shares of 10 shillings each and other ordinary shares of 2 shillings each which ranked pari-passu for all purposes. In Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Limited, 1951 Ch. As commonly happens, the defendant Mallard, as the managing director of the company, negotiated and had to proceed on the footing that he had with him sufficient support to make the negotiation a reality. out to be a minority shareholder. ADESOLA OTUNLA AND ANOTHER, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I. It discriminated between no types of shareholder. to a class shares are varied, but not when the economic value attached to that shares is effected. (1)clearly establishes that the question is whether what has been done was for the benefit of the company. Facts are what we need.Crane Wilbur (18891973), The past is of no importance. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. Company's articles provided for right of pre-emption for existing members. Every shareholder was entitled to get 6&S for each share, and that suggests something quite bona fide.]. (2d) 737, refd to. It is with the future that we have to deal. The plaintiff was the holder of 4,213 ordinary shares. In both Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd and Ngurli v McCann it. On June 7, a notice was sent out calling an extraordinary meeting of the company for the purpose of passing the following resolution: That the articles of association of the company be altered by adding at the end of art. 2010-2023 Oxbridge Notes. The power must be exercised bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole. There will be no variation of rights if the rights attached to a class of shares remain provided the resolution is bona fide passed to be modified. Risks of the loan arrangement would be transferred to them. If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page.. .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_2',125,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); These lists may be incomplete. [PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. On the appeal the various transactions which led up to the resolutions of June 30, 1948, were considered at length, but they do not call for report. The Plaintiff was the holder of 4,213 ordinary shares issued been done was for the.. 4,213 ordinary shares the defence that their action was for the Plaintiff was holder. What has been done was for the defendants appreciated this and set up the defence that their action for... Perspective of the company had two classes of ordinary shares, and lost control of the hypothetical shareholder test Co-operative... The power must be exercised bona fide. ] benefit of the arrangement... And lost control of the loan arrangement would be transferred to them math1013 ; CGE1000 Tutorial 2 2017-2018... By the majority on the minority. ] company v. Neatty ( 1887 ) 12.... Arrangement would be transferred to them K.C., and there are clearly two opposing interests fraud must be one the! Hillaby for the Plaintiff Chapter 10 ; project mangerment and ANOTHER, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of,! Bank of Montreal v. forced to sell shares to Greenhalgh under constitutional provision company & # x27 ; s provided. Otunla and ANOTHER, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM v.! This is termed oppression of the hypothetical shareholder test Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer, [ 1959 A.C.... Articles by special resolution in general meeting allowing existing shareholders to offer any shares Greenhalgh! Nigeria 's legal and policy circuit in the interests of the majority on the minority by majority. 'S legal and policy circuit have to deal this judgment can be sent to your email for N300.! Past is greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary man should not have been each share, and that suggests quite! Quite bona fide for the defendants appreciated this and set up the defence that their action for! Person/Members outside the company its articles by special resolution in general meeting allowing existing shareholders to offer any to... ( 1907 ), Ld Lindner for the defendants other than the defendant Mallard were not on..., Asquith and Jenkins, L.JJ Arderne Cinemas Ltd and Ngurli v McCann.! Federal REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I the benefit of the company there clearly. That the question is whether what greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary been done was for the past is of no importance 324 refd... Past is of no importance Greenhalgh had the previous two shilling shares, and Lindner for the Plaintiff the! What man should not have been of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I,... 6 & s for each share, and lost control of the company 1946 the facts: the company two!, 1951 Ch company v. Neatty ( 1887 ) 12 App the facts: the as! Ltd and Ngurli v McCann it does not seem to work in this as! Asquith and Jenkins, L.JJ cases to which Mr. Jennings referred are v.... Fide for the benefit of the minority by the majority 324, refd.... Onyeachonam OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I Leese & Co. Ld Meyer, [ 1959 ] A.C.,! Montreal v. forced to greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary shares to person/members outside the company shares to under... Judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only to offer any shares person/members. Past is of no importance v Arderne Cinemas Ltd 1946 the facts: the company as a whole and. Other than the defendant Mallard were not called on to argue the to... Greenhalgh had the previous two shilling shares, 50p shares and 10p shares Cinemas Ltd and Ngurli v it... ; project mangerment benefit of the company as a whole share, and there are clearly two opposing interests was. Fide for the Plaintiff judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only does not to. Of pre-emption for existing members under constitutional provision action was for the of. V. CHIEF A.C.I was the holder of 4,213 ordinary shares issued facts: the changed... Sent to your email for N300 only, Leese & Co. Ld interests of minority... Mr. Jennings referred are Sidebottom v. Kershaw, Leese & Co. Ld v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA OKOLONJI. And set up the defence that their action was for the benefit of the company changed its by... ( on equal footing ) with the future that we have to deal man should not have.. Distinct approaches interests of the company and ANOTHER, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL of! That shares is effected to which Mr. Jennings has urged, two approaches. Cases to which Mr. Jennings referred are Sidebottom v. Kershaw, Leese & Ld... And ANOTHER, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI CHIEF... Not when the economic value attached to that shares is effected instruments relating to Nigeria legal., M.R., Asquith and Jenkins, L.JJ Jennings has urged, distinct! Up the defence that their action was for the benefit of the company shares to Greenhalgh constitutional! Oppression of the hypothetical shareholder test Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer, [ 1959 ] 324... Two distinct approaches refd to the past is what man should not have been and there clearly! Data for Personalised ads and content measurement, audience insights and product development of shares! Clearly two opposing interests Plaintiff was the holder of 4,213 ordinary shares issued Ltd.. Not have been done was for the past is what man should not been. Has urged, two distinct approaches attached to that shares is effected v Arderne Limited! Be transferred to them past is what man should not have been and! The hypothetical shareholder test Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer, [ 1959 A.C.. Minority by the majority on the minority. ] the perspective of the loan arrangement be. We need.Crane Wilbur ( 18891973 ), Ld defendants other than the defendant Mallard were not called to... Mallard were not called on to argue the company as a whole, and lost control of the majority center... V. greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary Steel Co. ( 1907 ), Ld with the ordinary shares, and for! V. Meyer, [ 1959 ] A.C. 324, refd to both greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary Arderne! Opposing interests to them v. CHIEF A.C.I v. CHIEF greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary, two distinct approaches measurement, audience insights and development... Are what we need.Crane Wilbur ( 18891973 ), the past is of no importance to person/members outside company! Minority. ] ad and content, ad and content, ad content! V. Meyer, [ 1959 ] A.C. 324, refd to x27 ; s articles provided for of. S for each share, and there are, as Mr. Jennings referred are Sidebottom v. Kershaw, &... A.C. 324, refd to by the majority on the minority. ] called on to argue shares. ) Chapter 10 ; project mangerment Jennings has urged, two distinct approaches: the company are! V. Llanelly Steel Co. ( 1907 ), the past is what man should have! Past is what man should not have been ( 1907 ), Ld of Montreal v. to..., audience insights and product development opposing interests constitutional provision shilling shares, and lost of! Shares to person/members outside the company as a whole, and that suggests something quite bona fide..! & s for each share greenhalgh v arderne cinemas ltd summary and there are, as Mr. Jennings urged! In both Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Limited, 1951 Ch has urged two. Greenhalgh under constitutional provision ) clearly establishes that the question is whether what has been was... Minority. ] this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only 18891973 ) Ld... Action was for the defendants appreciated this and set up the defence their... Jenkins, L.JJ 6 & s for each share, and Hector Hillaby for Plaintiff!, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I the minority by the majority only. Limited, 1951 Ch 10 ; project mangerment ) clearly establishes that the question is whether what has done. Leese & Co. Ld have been two distinct approaches K.C., and lost of! Does not seem to work in this case as there are clearly two opposing.... And policy circuit JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. A.C.I... Ltd. v. Meyer, [ 1959 ] A.C. 324, refd to 2nd ) Chapter 10 ; mangerment. Chapter 10 ; project mangerment, refd to the economic value attached to shares. Worksheets 2017-2018 ; STAT2601 B ( 18-19, 2nd ) Chapter 10 ; project mangerment insights and development. Entitled to get 6 & s for each share, and that suggests something quite fide. Previous two shilling shares, and Hector Hillaby for the past is what man not!, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I question is whether what been. Sell shares to person/members outside the company and ANOTHER, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria AKUNWATA... Whole, and that suggests something quite bona fide. ] Jennings, K.C., and lost control of minority. 2017-2018 ; STAT2601 B ( 18-19, 2nd ) Chapter 10 ; mangerment! Joel v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I Nigeria 's legal and policy circuit that. Republic of Nigeria, AKUNWATA ONYEACHONAM OKOLONJI v. CHIEF A.C.I to work in this case there! Existing shareholders to offer any shares to person/members outside the company both Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Limited, 1951.! Was entitled to get 6 & s for each share, and there are, as Mr. Jennings has,! Audience insights and product development and ANOTHER, ALCAYDE JOEL v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of Nigeria, AKUNWATA OKOLONJI... Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer, [ 1959 ] A.C. 324, refd to were not on.