OPPRESSION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS- REFLECTIONS ON BLISSET v DANIEL
Main Article Content
Abstract
The leading modern case on the law relating to the rights of minority shareholders is the decision of the House of Lords in O’Neill v Phillips, in which Lord Hoffmann, giving the only speech, appeared to place heavy reliance upon the seminal speech of Lord Wilberforce in Re Westbourne Galleries Ltd. The main purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the reasoning of Lord Hoffmann with that of Lord Wilberforce. It is proposed to begin with a close look at the old case of Blisset v Daniel, and to analyse the use to which that authority was put by Lord Hoffmann and Lord Wilberforce. It is proposed to conclude by considering the question whether the reasoning of Lord Hoffmann in O’Neill v Phillips is, or was indeed ever meant by him to be, of general or wide application.
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
Authors retain the copyright and grant to the Journal the right to publish under license.
Authors retain the right to use their article (provided you acknowledge the published original in standard bibliographic citation form) in the following ways, as long as you do not sell it or give it away in ways that would conflict with our commercial business interests:
internal educational or other purposes of your own institution or company;
mounted on your own or your institutions website;
posted to free public servers of preprints and or article in your subject area;
or in whole or in part, as the basis for your own further publications or spoken presentations.