Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189

Facts

  • The case involved two shareholders of a real estate company alleging that the company’s directors had misapplied funds and breached their duties.
  • The shareholders sought to bring action against the directors for these alleged breaches.
  • The key dispute concerned whether individual shareholders, rather than the company itself, could bring legal action for wrongs done to the company.

Issues

  1. Whether individual shareholders may bring legal proceedings on behalf of the company for wrongs done to the company.
  2. Whether the majority of shareholders can ratify actions of directors, thereby precluding minority shareholders from suing.
  3. Whether exceptions exist permitting shareholders to bring actions when the company is unable or unwilling to do so.

Decision

  • The court held that a company, as a separate legal person, is the proper claimant to sue for wrongs committed against it, not individual shareholders.
  • The action was unsustainable since shareholders could not bring claims on the company's behalf if the majority could ratify the directors’ actions.
  • Exceptions to the rule exist, notably derivative claims where the company is under the control of wrongdoers and unable or unwilling to act.

Legal Principles

  • The proper claimant rule: only the company itself can bring an action for wrongs done to it, establishing the principle of majority rule in corporate governance.
  • The recognition of the company as a distinct legal entity underpins the principle; shareholders’ rights to litigate are generally curtailed to prevent disruption of collective decision-making.
  • Majority rule allows shareholders to ratify actions, further limiting minority interference.
  • Derivative claims are an exception, allowing minority shareholders to pursue litigation in specific circumstances, as now codified in sections 260-264 of the Companies Act 2006.
  • Related principles include reflective loss, preventing shareholders from claiming for company losses (as outlined in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] Ch 204 and clarified in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31), and the corporate veil, affirming the company's separate legal personality (from Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897)).

Conclusion

Foss v Harbottle established that the company itself, not its shareholders, is the proper entity to sue for wrongs done to it, reinforcing the principle of majority rule and the company’s distinct legal identity, while permitting exceptions through derivative actions and statutory developments under the Companies Act 2006.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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