7 Feb 2023
Because each party had a measure of success and it would be unjust to order costs against any of them, the Court exercised its discretion to decline to make any costs award and left each party to bear their own costs.
30 Apr 2020
The liquidator breached her duty under s 253 by reopening and investigating shareholder disputes that had been finally resolved by a formal, lawyer‑drafted settlement and thereby caused unreasonable delay, extra cost and loss of cooperation; the settlement amounted to shareholder consent/ratification (and reopening would be an abuse of process) so the liquidator should not have pursued those enquiries; accordingly the court reduced and fixed the liquidator's remuneration at a reasonable quantum and issued directions to complete the liquidation.
9 Dec 2019
There was insufficient evidential foundation that Duthie Whyte acted for the applicant or Sunbow in relation to the matters in dispute; although the firm may become a witness, that possibility does not justify debarment at this early stage; the appropriate course is to refuse debarment as premature while permitting the issue to be renewed after discovery and close of pleadings.
27 Jul 2018
Plaintiff failed to prove the companies' affairs were conducted in an oppressive or unfairly prejudicial way under s 174; the evidence showed historical and reasonable expectations that remuneration reflected participation and that the businesses continue to operate; absent evidence of bad faith, fraud, illegality or conflict of interest, the court will not grant s 174 relief; application dismissed.
8 May 2017
The company was deadlocked, had no useful purpose, and defendants ceased opposition; therefore it was just and equitable to appoint liquidators under s241(4)(d); the Court appointed liquidators and awarded costs to the plaintiffs, imposing costs liability on specified shareholders rather than the company.
7 Dec 2016
The without‑notice orders of 9 November 2016 were discharged because the plaintiffs' application contained materially inadequate and misleading information and they had come to the Court without clean hands; having received further confidential financial information the Court accepted the defendants' case that urgent capital was required and therefore rescinded the without‑notice restraint but left substantive rights and potential relief to be determined in the main proceeding.
9 Sept 2016
The Court declined applications for uplift and indemnity costs because the defendants' submissions did not meet the thresholds in High Court Rule 14.6; applied time band C to reflect additional work advising multiple defendants; ordered costs to follow the event and be paid by the named plaintiffs jointly and severally in specified amounts, but left open whether Dorchester may indemnify the plaintiffs depending on their authority and s162 of the Companies Act 1993.
3 Dec 2014
Application dismissed because applicant failed to prove inability to pay debts as they fall due (liquidity not established), evidence of persistent statutory non‑compliance was insufficient, no proven shareholder deadlock or loss of confidence to an extent requiring liquidation, and alternative remedies (share acquisition, statutory relief under ss 174, 178, 179) were available; therefore just and equitable ground not made out.
24 Jun 2011
The company is insolvent on its balance sheet and unable to meet likely IRD demands; the 50/50 shareholders have suffered an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence and cannot agree a funded buyout or viable restructuring; therefore it is just and equitable to wind up the company under s 241(4)(d) of the Companies Act 1993.