Assetco Plc v Shannon [2011] EWHC 816 (Ch) (21 March 2011)

Assetco Plc v Shannon [2011] EWHC 816 (Ch) (21 March 2011)

The balance of justice favours granting the mandatory injunction compelling Mr Shannon to vote in favour of the placement, as the risk of injustice in refusing the injunction outweighs the risk of granting it, given the imminent threat to the Company's survival and the conduct of Mr Shannon consistent with the undertaking.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 816 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: AssetCo plc; Defendant: Marcus John Shannon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interim mandatory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Mandatory Injunction, Shareholder Voting, Estoppel, Deed Formalities, Corporate Finance
Company Law Injunctions Interim Mandatory Injunction Shareholder Voting Estoppel Deed Formalities Corporate Finance

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AssetCo plc

Claimant

Marcus John Shannon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Shannon is bound by the deed of undertaking to vote in favour of the placement
  2. 2 Whether the Company is entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling Mr Shannon to vote his shares
  3. 3 Whether estoppel prevents Mr Shannon from resiling from his promise

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of justice favours granting the mandatory injunction compelling Mr Shannon to vote in favour of the placement, as the risk of injustice in refusing the injunction outweighs the risk of granting it, given the imminent threat to the Company's survival and the conduct of Mr Shannon consistent with the undertaking.

Court Disposition

Interim mandatory injunction granted

Orders

  • Mr Shannon is ordered to vote his shares in favour of the placement at the adjourned general meeting.