Russell v. Northern Bank, [1992] 1 WLR 588

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Greenwood Interiors Ltd is a private company specializing in bespoke furnishings. The articles of association allow the company's board to issue new shares by ordinary resolution. Caroline, Daniel, and Maya, who collectively hold 80% of the shares, enter into a private agreement to prohibit further share issuances unless all three consent. Several months later, Caroline unilaterally passes a resolution at a general meeting to issue new shares, citing the articles. Daniel and Maya insist that their private agreement invalidates this move.


Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the principle established under the relevant case law?

Introduction

The case of Russell v Northern Bank Development Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 588 established a central rule in company law on the relationship between legal powers and shareholder agreements. The House of Lords decided that while a company cannot reduce its legally granted powers by amending its articles, shareholders may privately agree to limit how they exercise those powers. The core principle distinguishes the company’s legal capacity (defined by law and articles) from shareholders’ decisions on using such powers (governed by private agreements). Required elements for valid agreements include specific terms, proper legal structure, and compliance with legal standards. This decision clarifies how shareholders can control company actions without contradicting legal requirements.

The Law-Based Powers of a Company

Companies derive their powers from statutes, primarily the Companies Act. These powers include issuing shares, borrowing money, and entering contracts. Articles of association detail how these powers are exercised. Amendments to articles must follow statutory procedures and cannot remove powers granted by law.

Shareholder Deals: Separate from Company Rules

Shareholder agreements operate outside the company’s formal governance. They are private contracts between shareholders, establishing rules for their conduct as owners. Russell v Northern Bank Development Ltd affirmed these agreements can legally prevent shareholders from exercising their statutory powers, even if the company retains those powers.

The Case Details and Outcome in Russell v Northern Bank Development Ltd

This dispute centered on a shareholder agreement for Northern Bank Development Ltd requiring unanimous consent to increase share capital. Although the company’s articles permitted such increases, the House of Lords enforced the shareholder agreement. The agreement did not alter the articles or restrict the company’s legal authority—it only obligated shareholders not to approve increases.

How Russell Differs from Cases Limiting Legal Powers

Russell must be distinguished from cases where companies attempt to limit statutory powers through their articles. For example, a company cannot include an article prohibiting all share issuances, as this would violate statutory rights. However, Russell demonstrates shareholders can privately agree to restrain their own use of these powers.

Uses and Effects of the Russell Rule

The Russell principle provides shareholders practical methods to manage company affairs. Agreements restricting statutory powers are common in joint ventures, family businesses, and private equity. Such agreements might govern dividend policies, director appointments, or major decisions. Examples include requiring unanimous shareholder consent for specific actions or limiting share transfers. This flexibility allows shareholders to define their arrangements and safeguard their interests within legal boundaries.

Conclusion

The Russell v Northern Bank Development Ltd decision establishes definitive principles on the interaction between legal powers and shareholder agreements. By distinguishing a company’s legal capacity from shareholders’ exercise of powers, the House of Lords provided a workable framework for shareholders to direct company matters. This rule, rooted in contract law, offers straightforward options for organizing shareholder relationships while respecting company law. The distinction between amending articles (which cannot limit statutory powers) and private shareholder agreements (which can restrict power use) remains a fundamental company law doctrine. The decision assists legal professionals and business owners in drafting precise, legally valid agreements.

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