Rayfield v Hands, [1960] Ch 1

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Evans Interiors Ltd is a closely held private company owned by three co-directors: Anna, Bill, and Carla. Its articles of association include a provision stating that if any shareholder decides to leave the company, they must inform the remaining directors, who are then obliged to purchase that shareholder’s shares at a fair market value. Anna informs Bill and Carla of her intention to leave and requests that they buy her shares. Bill and Carla refuse, insisting that any such clause in the articles only creates obligations between the company and individual shareholders, not direct obligations between shareholders themselves. A dispute arises over whether the provision directly binds Bill and Carla to purchase Anna’s shares, given the company’s size and this specific article wording.


Which of the following best explains the legal principle concerning the enforceability of this clause among the shareholders?

Introduction

The case of Rayfield v Hands [1960] Ch 1 is about the enforceability of articles of association of a private company. This judgment discusses the contractual nature of these articles and the circumstances where members can make other members follow their rules. The main point is about the statutory contract created by the Companies Act, specifically the effects of section 20 of the Companies Act 1948 (now section 33 of the Companies Act 2006), which states that the articles of association bind the company and its members. Key points for enforceability include a clear statement of the duty within the articles and the identification of the people bound by the specific rule. This case clarifies the situations in which a member can directly enforce an article against another member.

The Facts of Rayfield v Hands

The plaintiff, Mr. Rayfield, was a member of a private company, Tewkesbury and District Co-operative Society Limited, along with the defendants, who were the directors. The articles of association had a rule stating that any member wanting to transfer shares must tell the directors, who were required to buy those shares at a fair value. Mr. Rayfield wanted to enforce this rule, making the directors buy his shares. The defendants said that the article was not directly enforceable by one member against another, arguing that it was only an agreement between each member and the company itself.

The Decision of the Court

The Chancery Division, under Mr. Justice Vaisey, ruled that the article in question made a contract between the members themselves, specifically between Mr. Rayfield and the directors. The court explained that the small size of the membership and the nature of the company, along with the exact wording of the article, showed an intention to create a direct duty between members. This decision showed that the context of a private company, especially one with a small and stable membership, can greatly affect the interpretation of its articles of association.

The Statutory Contract and its Implications

Section 20 of the Companies Act 1948 is the basis of the contractual relationship between a company and its members, as well as among the members themselves. Rayfield v Hands shows how this statutory contract works in practice. The case confirms that while the articles mainly bind the company and its members individually, they can also make enforceable agreements directly between members, especially in the context of private companies. This shows the importance of writing articles of association carefully, thinking about the potential for direct enforceability between members.

Distinguishing Rayfield v Hands

This case has been reviewed by later courts and scholars, often pointing out its unique situations. The small and closely-held nature of the company in Rayfield v Hands is a key factor in the court’s decision. This difference suggests that in larger companies with a more changing membership, the assumption of direct enforceability between members might not apply. The exact wording of the article, clearly making the directors buy the shares, also helped the court’s finding.

Practical Significance of the Judgment

Rayfield v Hands remains an important case in company law. It gives a useful example for understanding the contractual nature of articles of association and the potential for direct enforceability between members. This case shows the importance of looking at the specific context of a company, including its size, membership structure, and the exact language of its articles, when deciding the scope and enforceability of its internal rules. While later cases have refined and limited the use of Rayfield v Hands, its ideas continue to guide the interpretation of articles of association, especially in closely held companies. The case shows the possibility for articles to make binding agreements not just between the company and its members, but also directly between members themselves. This idea shows the need for careful writing of articles of association, making sure they are clear and avoid unintended results regarding the rights and duties of members.

Conclusion

Rayfield v Hands shows the complexities of the statutory contract created by the articles of association. The case directly addresses the ability of one member to enforce a rule against another, highlighting the interaction between the company's structure and the wording of its articles. The decision shows the importance of the Companies Act 1948 in making this contractual framework. The specific facts of Rayfield v Hands, especially the close-knit nature of the company, must be considered when using this example in other situations. The judgment adds to the understanding of the workings of section 20 of the Companies Act 1948 (now section 33 of the Companies Act 2006) and its practical results for shareholders. The court’s reasoning shows that the interpretation of articles of association must always be contextual, considering the specific traits of the company and the nature of the relationship between its members. This idea stresses the importance of legal advice in writing and interpreting these key documents.

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