Goodchild v Taylor & Anor

Goodchild v Taylor & Anor

The first respondent's conduct—setting up a competing firm, taking staff, files, and clients, withdrawing company funds, and blocking company decisions while remaining a director and shareholder—constituted clear breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties and was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner's interests as a shareholder. There was no consent by the petitioner to these actions. The appropriate relief is an order that the petitioner purchase the first respondent's shares at a fair value determined by the court.

Parties
Petitioner: Lee Goodchild; First Respondent: Scott Taylor; Second Respondent: Taylor Goodchild Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Directors' Duties, Shareholder Disputes, Valuation of Shares, Fiduciary Duties
Company Law Unfair Prejudice Directors' Duties Shareholder Disputes Valuation of Shares Fiduciary Duties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Goodchild

Petitioner

Scott Taylor

First Respondent

Taylor Goodchild Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 S.994 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affairs of Taylor Goodchild Limited were conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner as a shareholder
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent breached fiduciary and statutory duties as a director
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner consented to the first respondent's actions in setting up a competing firm, taking staff, files, and clients while remaining a director and shareholder

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent's conduct—setting up a competing firm, taking staff, files, and clients, withdrawing company funds, and blocking company decisions while remaining a director and shareholder—constituted clear breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties and was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner's interests as a shareholder. There was no consent by the petitioner to these actions. The appropriate relief is an order that the petitioner purchase the first respondent's shares at a fair value determined by the court.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • Petitioner to purchase the first respondent's 50% shareholding in Taylor Goodchild Limited at a fair value of £170,500.