Routledge v Skerritt, [2019] BCC 812

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Relevant case law includes O’Neill v Phillips [1999] 1 WLR 1092, in which the House of Lords clarified that a majority shareholder’s conduct can be unfairly prejudicial if it disregards the minority’s legitimate interests. This principle is especially pertinent when dividends are withheld without valid reason while awarding excessive remuneration to the majority shareholder. Under such circumstances, a minority shareholder may have a claim under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. Caroline, holding 20% of Horizon Interiors Ltd, has received no dividends for four years. Meanwhile, Morgan, the majority shareholder and sole director, has significantly increased her own salary and bonuses without transparent justification.


Which of the following statements best explains whether Caroline is likely to succeed in her unfair prejudice claim?

Introduction

Unfair prejudice, as defined in section 994 of the Companies Act 2006, offers a primary legal remedy for minority shareholders facing unfair treatment by the majority. This law permits courts to intervene when company actions harm some members’ interests unjustly. Conflicts frequently focus on dividend practices. To establish unfair prejudice, both unfair conduct and resulting harm must be demonstrated. Courts assess actions against legal rules and the company’s own policies.

The Importance of Routledge v Skerritt [2019] BCC 812

The High Court’s ruling in Routledge v Skerritt illustrates how unfair prejudice rules apply to dividend disagreements. The case highlights the thorough examination of facts required in such disputes. The central conflict was the failure to pay dividends despite company earnings, a typical basis for unfair prejudice claims.

The Facts of the Case

Mr. Routledge, a minority shareholder, claimed the majority owner and director, Mr. Skerritt, unfairly retained profits rather than distributing dividends. Mr. Skerritt argued profit retention was necessary for business expansion. The company had recorded consistent profits over multiple years without sharing funds with shareholders.

The Court’s Findings and Outcome

The High Court examined the company’s financial records, investment strategies, and communications with shareholders. It determined whether profit retention addressed genuine business needs or aimed to deprive Mr. Routledge of financial gains. The court sided with Mr. Skerritt, concluding profit retention was justified and not unfairly harmful. The ruling clarified that mere disagreement with majority decisions on dividends does not constitute unfair prejudice.

Dividend Practices and the Quasi-Partnership Rule

Routledge v Skerritt reaffirms that courts typically refrain from intervening in company decisions, particularly regarding dividends. However, it recognizes that withholding dividends to disadvantage minority shareholders could be unjust, especially in quasi-partnerships reliant on mutual trust. Prior rulings such as Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 establish that abrupt shifts in dividend practices without proper justification may be unfair.

Implications for Minority Shareholders

This case highlights the challenges minority shareholders face when contesting dividend practices. Strong evidence is required to prove actions are both harmful and unfair. Shareholders should maintain clear records of communications, financial details, and policy decisions. Alternative dispute methods should be explored before pursuing expensive litigation.

Conclusion

Routledge v Skerritt contributes to the interpretation of unfair prejudice in dividend conflicts. It confirms courts’ reluctance to overturn valid business choices but permits intervention in clear cases of unjust harm. The ruling emphasizes the need for careful examination of company finances and shareholder interactions. Establishing unfair prejudice demands proof that actions are harmful and unreasonable under legal principles, as seen in cases like Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd. Both majority and minority shareholders should understand these rules to ensure fair 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.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

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