Foss v Harbottle

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date25 March 1843
Date25 March 1843
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
956 cases
  • Ronald Rowe v Sunshine Developers Ltd et Al
    • Jamaica
    • Supreme Court (Jamaica)
    • 23 July 2004
    ...feels that the company is being disadvantaged the proper claimant with the right to sue is the company. She relied on the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 in which a shareholder by himself or herself cannot complain about a wrong done to the company by the directors however legit......
  • Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area)
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Cabvision Ltd v Feetum and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 December 2005
    ...GROUNDS OF APPEAL 49 By ground 1 of its grounds of appeal, CV raises the status issue once again, contending that the rule in Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 applies to a limited liability partnership, and that none of the recognised exceptions to that rule is applicable in the instant ......
  • Heyting v Dupont
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
24 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 18-21, 2017)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 27 April 2017
    ...Torts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Unlawful Conspiracy, Corporations, Derivative Actions, The Rule in Foss v. Harbottle (1843), 67 E.R. 189, Directors, Duties, Fiduciary Shtaif decided to start a company called Euro Gas in which he would acquire undervalued Russian oil and gas com......
  • Derivative Litigation: Recent High Court Decision Indicates Continued Significance Of The Common Law Derivative Action
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 3 July 2020
    ...person who is not a member but to whom shares in the company have been transferred or transmitted by operation of law." 4 Foss v Harbottle 67 E.R. 189 (1843) 2 Hare 461 5 Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v Newman Industries Ltd. and Others (No. 2) [1982] Ch. 204 6 For example, a statutory deri......
  • High Court Strikes Out Shareholders' Claim Barred By The Reflective Loss Rule
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 28 March 2022
    ...To allow otherwise, would subvert the rule that no shareholder can bring a claim on behalf of the company (as per Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461). With the above in mind, the High Court considered that the claimants had to show that Motoriety had not suffered the same loss. In fact, the......
  • Overcoming Majority Rule: The Minority Oppression Remedy In Bermuda
    • Bermuda
    • Mondaq Bermuda
    • 27 July 2018
    ...to exit for value from shareholding positions which have become untenable due to the oppressive conduct of the majority. Footnotes 1 (1843) 2 Hare 461. 2 Succeeded by section 459 of the Companies Act 2006 3 Annuity & Life Re v Kingboard et al [2015] SC (Bda) 76 Com at paragraphs 18-25. ......
  • Get Started for Free
101 books & journal articles
  • DISCLOSURE OF THE COMPANY'S PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS TO SHAREHOLDERS AS AN APPLICATION OF JOINT INTEREST PRIVILEGE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2020, December - January 2020
    • 1 December 2020
    ...to avoid breach of duty when the advice received was wrong). 151 See para 56 above. 152 Green v Walkling [2008] 2 BCLC 332 at [34]. 153 (1843) 2 Hare 461; 67 ER 189. Walter Woon on Company Law (Tan Cheng Han SC ed) (Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd Ed, 2009) at para 2.46. 154 (1888) 57 LJ Ch......
  • SOME CURRENT ISSUES IN SINGAPORE CORPORATE LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December - January 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd [2016] 2 SLR 366 at [47]. 44 In which case the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 would apply to preclude a personal action by a member. 45 Such as whether or the extent to which a company's lien over its shares should be......
  • Duties
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Partnership and LLP Law - 2nd edition Contents
    • 29 August 2018
    ...to bring proceedings in the name and on behalf of the LLP (see further 9.3.1). The application of s 994 may be 38 See Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. 74 Partnership and LLP Law excluded by members of an LLP if they do so unanimously and record this in writing (and this is common practic......
  • Contract formation
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume I - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...318 Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Owners Corporation SP 64487 [2009] NSWCa 223 at [53], per Sackville aJa. 319 Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 hare 461 [67 Er 189]; Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 aC 1 at 34–36, per Lord Bingham, at 61–62, per Lord Millett; Waddington Ltd v Chan Chun Hoo (2008......
  • Get Started for Free