Jersey Judgment

Pacific v Christensen [1995] JLR 250 (10 August 1995)

Company Law Minority Shareholder Action Adjournment of Proceedings Shareholder Meeting Corporate Wrongs

Citation: [1995] JLR 250
Status: Judgment
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Posture: Minority Shareholders' Action / Application for Adjournment Pending General Meeting

More details

Posture: Minority Shareholders' Action / Application for Adjournment Pending General Meeting

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

Holding and result

The court held that adjourning the minority shareholders' action pending a general meeting is proper, and the court must consider the shareholders' views, the conduct of the meeting, and the fairness of information provided when deciding whether the action should continue.

Court disposition

Adjournment granted

Orders

Hearing of minority shareholders' action adjourned pending general meeting

Material facts

Parties

Pacific

Applicant

Christensen

Respondent

Procedural history

Posture

Minority Shareholders' Action / Application for Adjournment Pending General Meeting

Questions and positions

Legal issues

01
Whether it is proper to adjourn a minority shareholders' action pending a general meeting to seek shareholders' views
02
How the court should take into account the views expressed at the meeting, the proceedings at the meeting, and the fairness of information given to shareholders in deciding whether to allow the action to continue

Party arguments

Applicant: The hearing of the minority shareholders' action should be adjourned pending a general meeting to ascertain the views of the shareholders.
Respondent: The action should proceed without adjournment, and the general meeting is unnecessary or irrelevant to the court's decision.

Court’s reasoning

Legal principles

01
[1995] JLR 250

It is proper to adjourn the hearing of a minority shareholders' action pending a general meeting seeking shareholders' views. The subsequent decision whether to allow the action to continue should take into account those views, the proceedings at the meeting, and the fairness of information given to shareholders.

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that adjourning the minority shareholders' action pending a general meeting is proper, and the court must consider the shareholders' views, the conduct of the meeting, and the fairness of information provided when deciding whether the action should continue.

Court disposition

Adjournment granted

Hearing of minority shareholders' action adjourned pending general meeting

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[1995] JLR 250

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Pacific v Christensen [1995] JLR 250 (10 August 1995) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1995/JLR950250.html Cite as: [1995] JLR 250 [ New search ] [ Help ] Pacific v Christensen 1995 JLR 250 (10 August 1995) Companies - legal proceedings - action in respect of corporate wrong - proper to adjourn hearing of minority shareholders' action pending general meeting seeking shareholders' views-subsequent decision whether to allow action to continue to take into account those views, proceedings at meeting and fairness of information given to shareholders The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 1995 JLR 250 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1995/JLR950250.html

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.