BIG v Smith, [2021] EWCA Civ 912

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Matthew is a minority shareholder in a start-up company called CultureCall Ltd, which produces virtual reality software for remote events. He and his co-investor, Alicia, entered into a detailed shareholders’ agreement that included specific obligations between them both. After a falling-out, Alicia allegedly breached several of these obligations, causing Matthew to lose a major licensing deal that was set to benefit him personally. CultureCall Ltd also suffered financial harm from Alicia’s actions, resulting in decreased company revenue. Matthew now seeks to recover a sum he claims represents direct losses from Alicia’s breach, separate from the company’s losses.


Which of the following statements best aligns with how the reflective loss principle would apply to Matthew’s claim under the shareholders’ agreement?

Introduction

Reflective loss describes a drop in a shareholder’s share value caused by damage to the company. The rule blocking recovery for reflective loss prevents shareholders from making personal claims if the company can act. This rule avoids duplicate payments and keeps company and shareholder rights separate. The House of Lords in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 set out the main criteria for this rule, stressing the difference between personal and derivative claims. This article examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Broadcasting Investment Group Ltd v Smith [2021] EWCA Civ 912, which explains how the reflective loss rule works in disputes over shareholder agreements.

The Facts of Broadcasting Investment Group Ltd v Smith

Broadcasting Investment Group Ltd (BIGL) and Mr. Smith signed a shareholders' agreement for a company, Infront Sports & Media AG. BIGL claimed Mr. Smith broke this agreement, harming both Infront and BIGL directly. BIGL sued, asking for damages for direct harm and reflective loss from falling Infront share values.

The Reflective Loss Principle Reaffirmed

The Court of Appeal in BIGL v Smith kept the reflective loss rule as stated in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co and later in Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja [2020] UKSC 31. The Court ruled the rule fully blocks shareholder claims for reflective loss if the company can act. The goal is still to stop duplicate payments and protect the company’s legal standing.

Telling Reflective Loss Apart from Direct Loss

A key point in BIGL v Smith was the Court’s advice on separating reflective and direct loss. The Court decided that if a shareholder’s loss stands apart from the company’s loss, it is not reflective and can be claimed personally. BIGL said some losses came straight from Mr. Smith’s breach of the shareholders' agreement, separate from Infront’s losses. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding these losses could be claimed as they came from a distinct legal breach, not the company’s loss.

How Shareholder Agreements Matter

The BIGL v Smith ruling showed the importance of shareholder agreements in judging reflective loss claims. The Court accepted that breaking these agreements can create direct shareholder claims, apart from the company’s claims. This happens because shareholder agreements set direct contractual duties between shareholders, separate from their ties to the company. Losses from breaking these duties don’t count as reflective loss.

Using Marex Principles

The Court of Appeal in BIGL v Smith used ideas from Marex, which narrowed the reflective loss rule’s reach. Marex said the rule covers creditors and others with financial stakes in the company, not just shareholders. It also said the rule works even if the company can’t act, like during insolvency. However, the Court in BIGL v Smith treated this case differently, as the claim was based on separate rights under the shareholders' agreement, not Infront’s loss.

What This Means in Practice

Broadcasting Investment Group Ltd v Smith gives clear advice for shareholders, companies, and lawyers. The decision shows the need to check if a shareholder’s loss is direct or reflective. If the loss comes from breaking a standalone agreement like a shareholders' pact, it may be claimed even if the company has its own case. This outcome strengthens the role of clear shareholder agreements in protecting shareholder rights.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Broadcasting Investment Group Ltd v Smith gives key points on the reflective loss rule. The decision separates truly reflective losses (from share value drops due to company harm) from direct losses from separate legal breaches, like those in shareholders’ agreements. By confirming the rules in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co and Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja, BIGL v Smith clarifies when shareholders can make personal claims apart from the company’s rights. This affects how shareholder agreements are written and enforced, and how disputes are handled. The Court’s split between direct and reflective loss shows the need for clear legal arguments and proof of separate loss, making sure the reflective loss rule works correctly while letting shareholders claim for breaches of their own rights.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal