Welcome

Randhawa v Turpin (No 2) [2018] 2 WLR 1175

ResourcesRandhawa v Turpin (No 2) [2018] 2 WLR 1175

Facts

  • Mr. Randhawa and Mr. Turpin were the only directors and shareholders in a family company.
  • A dispute arose regarding the validity of a deed of release.
  • Mr. Randhawa contended that Mr. Turpin lacked authority to execute the deed without a formal shareholder resolution.
  • Mr. Turpin argued that informal discussions and mutual understanding between them as directors and shareholders sufficed to authorize the action.

Issues

  1. Whether informal shareholder approval can substitute for a formal shareholder resolution when the law requires such a resolution.
  2. Whether the deed of release executed by Mr. Turpin without a formal resolution was valid.
  3. The extent to which the Companies Act 2006 permits reliance on informal shareholder arrangements, particularly for major company actions.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that informal shareholder approval does not override the requirement for a formal resolution where the law, specifically the Companies Act 2006, mandates one.
  • The deed of release required a formal shareholder resolution; Mr. Turpin's reliance on informal approval was insufficient.
  • The Court distinguished the case from Re Duomatic Ltd, indicating that informal consent is only valid where no formal procedure is legally required.
  • The Companies Act 2006 prescribes formal procedures for shareholder resolutions, including written resolutions and meetings, to ensure proper record-keeping, shareholder participation, and minority shareholder protection.
  • Informal shareholder approval is only effective where the law does not mandate a formal process and must represent clear agreement from all shareholders; it is inappropriate for significant decisions or structural changes.
  • Re Duomatic Ltd confirms informal approval can authorize company actions only where all shareholders agree and no statutory requirement for a formal resolution exists.
  • Formal procedures are essential to safeguard shareholder rights and maintain transparency in company management.

Conclusion

Randhawa v Turpin (No 2) clarifies that informal shareholder agreements cannot replace formal resolutions required by company law; directors and shareholders must strictly comply with Companies Act 2006 procedures to ensure validity and protect shareholder rights.

Assistant

How can I help you?
Expliquer en français
Explicar en español
Объяснить на русском
شرح بالعربية
用中文解释
हिंदी में समझाएं
Give me a quick summary
Break this down step by step
What are the key points?
Study companion mode
Homework helper mode
Loyal friend mode
Academic mentor mode
Expliquer en français
Explicar en español
Объяснить на русском
شرح بالعربية
用中文解释
हिंदी में समझाएं
Give me a quick summary
Break this down step by step
What are the key points?
Study companion mode
Homework helper mode
Loyal friend mode
Academic mentor mode

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.