Lee v. Buckle [2004] IEHC 146 (30 July 2004)

Lee v. Buckle [2004] IEHC 146 (30 July 2004)

Once it is acknowledged that the ultimate outcome of the respondent's claim will be a monetary award and not retention of the shares, the rationale for continuing the stop notice no longer exists; the procedure is defunct when the claimant ceases to be entitled to the shares in specie.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 146
Parties
Applicant: Adrian Lee; Respondent: David Buckle
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under Order 46, Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 / Final Determination of Application
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Shareholder Agreements, Stop Orders, Transfer of Shares, Beneficial Interest, Injunctive Relief
Company Law Civil Procedure Shareholder Agreements Stop Orders Transfer of Shares Beneficial Interest Injunctive Relief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Lee

Applicant

David Buckle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Order 46, Rule 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 / Final Determination of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operation of a stop notice restraining transfer of shares should cease when the only dispute is the quantum of the purchase price for the shares

Ratio Decidendi

Once it is acknowledged that the ultimate outcome of the respondent's claim will be a monetary award and not retention of the shares, the rationale for continuing the stop notice no longer exists; the procedure is defunct when the claimant ceases to be entitled to the shares in specie.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Order ceasing the operation of the notice served by the respondent on the Company on 21st November, 2003.