Union Music Ltd. & Anor v Watson & Anor

Union Music Ltd. & Anor v Watson & Anor

The court held that the judge erred in treating clause 6.1.18 as a substantive veto rather than a quorum provision and in relying on authorities concerning class rights and equal shareholdings. In a company with unequal shareholdings and no class rights, the majority shareholder should not be prevented from exercising its rights by the minority's refusal to attend meetings. The court should exercise its discretion under section 371 to order a meeting to break the deadlock and allow the appointment of a new director.

Parties
Claimant: Union Music Limited; Claimant: Arias Limited; Defendant: Russell John Watson; Defendant: Blacknight Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of section 371 application; permission to appeal refused in respect of Part 8 proceedings (except as to costs)
Legal Topics
Section 371 Companies Act 1985, Shareholders' Agreements, Quorum Provisions, Appointment of Directors, Deadlock in Company Management
Company Law Section 371 Companies Act 1985 Shareholders' Agreements Quorum Provisions Appointment of Directors Deadlock in Company Management

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Music Limited

Claimant

Arias Limited

Claimant

Russell John Watson

Defendant

Blacknight Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 371 of the Companies Act 1985 to order a general meeting where the minority shareholder threatens to render meetings inquorate by non-attendance
  2. 2 Whether the shareholders' agreement clause 6.1.18 operates as a veto or merely a quorum provision
  3. 3 Whether the lower court erred in refusing to order a meeting and in its reliance on prior authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the judge erred in treating clause 6.1.18 as a substantive veto rather than a quorum provision and in relying on authorities concerning class rights and equal shareholdings. In a company with unequal shareholdings and no class rights, the majority shareholder should not be prevented from exercising its rights by the minority's refusal to attend meetings. The court should exercise its discretion under section 371 to order a meeting to break the deadlock and allow the appointment of a new director.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of section 371 application; permission to appeal refused in respect of Part 8 proceedings (except as to costs)

Orders

  • Order for a meeting to be called to appoint a new director, with voting permitted even if only one member is present
  • Permission to appeal in respect of the Part 8 proceedings refused, subject to costs