Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas, [1951] Ch 286

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Epoch Cinemas Ltd recently discovered a need for additional capital to fund the expansion of its new theater wing. The board proposed a share reclassification that would subdivide each existing £1 share into four 25 pence shares, maintaining the proportion of ownership among current shareholders. Subsequently, the board passed a special resolution allowing shareholders with 25 pence shares to purchase an additional block of shares at a discounted price. Mr. Owen, a minority shareholder, objected that this arrangement unfairly diluted his overall control and favored larger investors. Mr. Owen contends that the reclassification is void because it reduces his voting power and does not serve any legitimate company purpose.


Which of the following statements best reflects the relevant legal principle that courts apply in such disputes?

Introduction

Share class variation, a key part of company law, involves changing the rights attached to different classes of shares within a company's structure. The technical principles for such changes come from legal statutes and past court decisions, aiming to protect the interests of both majority and minority shareholders. Basic rules include following the company's articles of association and acting in good faith for the company's overall benefit. The judgment in Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd offers important clarity on these rules, particularly regarding voting rights dilution.

The Facts of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd

The case centered on a special resolution by Arderne Cinemas Ltd to split its existing 5 shilling shares into five 1 shilling shares. This split did not change any shareholder’s proportional ownership. However, a later resolution let holders of the new 1 shilling shares buy five more shares per share owned. Mr. Greenhalgh, a minority shareholder, argued this unfairly reduced his voting power. He claimed the scheme aimed to shift control to Mr. Mallard, the managing director, who owned a large block of shares.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal rejected Mr. Greenhalgh’s appeal. Lord Evershed MR, giving the main judgment, ruled the split and later share offer were not improper. The court separated changes to share class rights from changes affecting individual shareholders’ ability to use those rights. No evidence showed the resolutions served a hidden purpose or harmed the company’s general interests. The court noted company articles often include methods to adjust class rights, stressing the need to follow these rules.

The "Benefit of the Company as a Whole" Test

A major issue in Greenhalgh was interpreting the "benefit of the company as a whole" standard. The court clarified this test does not mean the same as benefiting most shareholders. However, it accepted company and shareholder interests often overlap. The court stated the test requires an unbiased evaluation of whether the change truly helps the company’s broader interests, including its long-term success.

Distinguishing Greenhalgh from Other Cases

Greenhalgh differs from cases like Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co Ltd [1919] 1 Ch 290, where a share issue was ruled improper because it mainly pressured a minority shareholder to sell. In Greenhalgh, the court found no such motive. The difference lies in intent: Brown targeted a specific shareholder, while Greenhalgh accepted the change aimed to help the company raise funds.

The Significance of Greenhalgh for Share Class Variations

Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd remains a key case in company law. It confirms share changes reducing minority voting power are not automatically invalid. The key factor is whether changes are made honestly for the company’s overall good. The judgment shows this requires unbiased review focused on the company’s interests, not just majority shareholders. It also stresses the need to follow a company’s articles when making such changes.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd gives clear direction on share class variation rules. The case explains the "benefit of the company as a whole" test, showing how it applies when minority rights might be reduced. By contrasting Greenhalgh with cases involving bad faith, the judgment offers a method to assess share changes’ lawfulness. It reinforces the need to follow company articles and ensure fairness when adjusting shareholder rights, shaping company law on this detailed topic. This decision remains a key reference for cases involving share class changes and influences how shareholder rights are viewed in corporate governance.

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