15 Feb 1982
PAUL MURRAY-JONES v. GUARDFORCE LTD AND OTHERS
- Citation
- PAUL MURRAY-JONES v. GUARDFORCE LTD AND OTHERS
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP1090/1981
The bank and its nominee subsidiary (2nd and 3rd respondents), which together control 51% of shares, were properly joined because the reliefs sought could operate against them; the four bank-employed directors (4th–7th) were improperly joined because they hold no shares and all reliefs sought (including removal as directors and sale/transfer of shares) could be obtained by orders directed at the company and the majority shareholders without personal orders against the directors, and therefore they were struck out despite the delay.