(FIRST) ALFRED GEORGE CHEYNE; (SECOND) VALERIE CHEYNE AGAINST ALFRED CHEYNE ENGINEERING LIMITED AND BALMORAL GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2021] ScotCS CSOH_17 (11 February 2021)

(FIRST) ALFRED GEORGE CHEYNE; (SECOND) VALERIE CHEYNE AGAINST ALFRED CHEYNE ENGINEERING LIMITED AND BALMORAL GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED [2021] ScotCS CSOH_17 (11 February 2021)

The court refused to dismiss the petition, holding that the reasonableness of the Balmoral Offer could not be determined without hearing evidence on the disputed facts, particularly regarding the calculation of share value and the alleged unfair prejudice. The existence of the Option and the factual disputes about its exercise and valuation required proof before the court could assess whether the offer cured the alleged unfair prejudice or whether continued prosecution was an abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_17
Parties
Petitioner: Alfred George Cheyne; Petitioner: Valerie Cheyne; First Respondent: Alfred Cheyne Engineering Limited; Second Respondent: Balmoral Group Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 / Interlocutory Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Motion to dismiss refused; petition to proceed to proof.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Shareholder Disputes, Abuse of Process, Remedies Under Companies Act 2006
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Shareholder Disputes Abuse of Process Remedies Under Companies Act 2006

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred George Cheyne

Petitioner

Valerie Cheyne

Petitioner

Alfred Cheyne Engineering Limited

First Respondent

Balmoral Group Holdings Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 / Interlocutory Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition should be dismissed as an abuse of process due to refusal of a reasonable settlement offer
  2. 2 Whether the Balmoral Offer constituted a reasonable offer curing the alleged unfair prejudice
  3. 3 Whether the court should adjudicate on the merits before determining reasonableness of the offer

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to dismiss the petition, holding that the reasonableness of the Balmoral Offer could not be determined without hearing evidence on the disputed facts, particularly regarding the calculation of share value and the alleged unfair prejudice. The existence of the Option and the factual disputes about its exercise and valuation required proof before the court could assess whether the offer cured the alleged unfair prejudice or whether continued prosecution was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Motion to dismiss refused; petition to proceed to proof.

Orders

  • Petition not dismissed; case to proceed to proof on reserved dates.