Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation v Hardy

Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation v Hardy

The defendant's request was invalid as it did not contain the mandatory statement required by section 116(4)(d) at the time it was made; subsequent correction did not retrospectively validate the request. Even if valid, at least one stated purpose (removal of directors for alleged misconduct in another company) was improper, requiring a no-access order.

Parties
Claimant: Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation; Defendant: Mark Gregory Hardy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Register of Members, Proper Purpose Test, Statutory Compliance, Charity Governance
Company Law Register of Members Proper Purpose Test Statutory Compliance Charity Governance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation

Claimant

Mark Gregory Hardy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's request under section 116 of the Companies Act 2006 was valid
  2. 2 Whether the request was made for a proper purpose under section 117 of the Companies Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's request was invalid as it did not contain the mandatory statement required by section 116(4)(d) at the time it was made; subsequent correction did not retrospectively validate the request. Even if valid, at least one stated purpose (removal of directors for alleged misconduct in another company) was improper, requiring a no-access order.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • No access order granted; claimant not required to comply with defendant's request for register of members.