Peter's American Delicacy Co Ltd v Heath (1939) 61 CLR 457

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Horizon Fishing Pty Ltd is a mid-sized business with a diverse group of shareholders. The majority shareholders, who also serve as directors, propose an amendment to the company’s articles that would compel minority shareholders to sell their shares to the directors, at a price set by board resolution. The majority assert that gaining more concentrated control would streamline decision-making in the volatile fishing industry. Minority shareholders are concerned that the forced share transfer primarily benefits the majority shareholders and provides insufficient financial security for their holdings. A dispute arises regarding whether the proposed amendment satisfies the legal test requiring that changes to articles be made for the company’s overall benefit.


Which of the following is the single best statement about how a court would likely assess the validity of the proposed article change, based on established legal principles?

Introduction

Company law sets out the rules for creating, running, and ending businesses. A company’s articles of association are a key document that controls its internal operations. Adjustments to these articles must follow legal requirements and common practices, which can lead to conflicts, especially when majority shareholders act in ways that hurt minority interests. Peter's American Delicacy Co Ltd v Heath (1939) 61 CLR 457 is an important case in Australian corporate law, looking at the limits of changing articles and protecting minority shareholders from unfair actions by the majority. The case stresses that article changes must be done honestly for the good of the company as a whole.

The Facts of Peter's American Delicacy

Peter's American Delicacy Co Ltd produced confectionery. The company’s articles allowed directors to buy shares offered to them. A majority shareholder, who was also a director, proposed changing the articles to force shareholders to sell shares to directors at a set price. This change would let the majority shareholder gain more control. Minority shareholders argued this was unfair.

The High Court's Decision

The High Court of Australia ruled the proposed change invalid. It confirmed that article changes must be done honestly for the company’s overall good, as stated in Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa [1900] 1 Ch 656. This rule stops majority shareholders from acting unfairly. In Peter's American Delicacy, the court found the change mainly helped the majority shareholder, not the company, making it invalid.

Honest Action for the Company’s Overall Good

The test requires an objective check: would a fair person see the change as helpful for the company? Simply believing the change is good is not enough; there must be clear benefit. This stops majority shareholders from changing articles to take minority shares or serve personal aims.

The Role of Directors in Article Changes

Directors can suggest article changes but must focus on the company’s needs, considering all shareholders. Peter's American Delicacy shows directors must act fairly. Changes seen to unfairly help certain shareholders or directors will usually be struck down.

Effects on Minority Shareholder Rights

Peter's American Delicacy strengthens protections for minority shareholders against unfair majority actions. It sets a clear rule: article changes must not harm minority interests. This gives minority shareholders ways to challenge unfair treatment legally.

The Lasting Impact of Peter's American Delicacy

Peter's American Delicacy remains a key case in Australian corporate law. Its focus on the “honest action for the company’s good” test helps courts decide disputes over article changes. It highlights the duties and limits of directors and majority shareholders. The case also guides legal professionals in advising on company management and shareholder rights.

Conclusion

Peter's American Delicacy Co Ltd v Heath clarifies the rules for changing company articles. The High Court upheld the Allen v Gold Reefs rule, requiring changes to benefit the whole company. The case shows this test is objective, ensuring minority rights are upheld. Its ideas remain relevant, guiding how article changes should be handled and stressing the need for directors to act justly. The decision helps balance majority power with minority protections, shaping company governance and court decisions.

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