Smith v. Croft, [1987] 3 All ER 909

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Redwood Interiors Ltd is a medium-sized company with a small group of minority shareholders who control approximately 30% of the total shares. The majority shareholder and director is alleged to have misappropriated corporate funds, and the board refuses to investigate. Zoe, a minority shareholder, seeks to bring a derivative claim but worries about the statutory requirement for sufficient independent minority support. She has secured endorsements from several minority shareholders who collectively hold 12% of the total shares, though by number they represent over half of the minority group. Some minority shareholders appear aligned with the alleged wrongdoer, raising questions about whether their shares should be excluded from the support calculation.


Which statement best reflects the approach for establishing adequate backing from independent minority shareholders under principles similar to those in Smith v Croft (No 2)?

Introduction

The case of Smith v Croft (No 2) [1987] 3 All ER 909, heard in the Chancery Division, provides clear guidance on the limitations faced by minority shareholders when disputing corporate actions. This judgment establishes principles related to the proper plaintiff rule and the statutory derivative action, focusing on the requirement that a minority shareholder prove the action has backing from members holding a notable part of the independent minority. The case reviews the relationship between common law principles and statutory rules on shareholder remedies, creating specific criteria for assessing the validity of derivative claims. These rules seek to stop unnecessary or improper use of legal processes while making sure valid shareholder concerns are handled.

The Proper Plaintiff Rule and Derivative Actions

Derivative actions, initiated by shareholders for the company, deal with harms caused to the company itself. The proper plaintiff rule states the company, as a separate legal entity, is the rightful plaintiff in such cases. Smith v Croft (No 2) affirms this rule, stating a shareholder cannot usually bring an action for harms caused to the company unless those responsible manage the company and prevent it from pursuing the claim.

The “Significant Portion” Requirement in Section 210 of the Companies Act 1985

Smith v Croft (No 2) explains the interpretation of Section 210 of the Companies Act 1985 (now Section 260 of the Companies Act 2006), which governs statutory derivative actions. This section allows a company member to request court approval to initiate proceedings for the company. A main issue in the case is the requirement for the applicant to show support from a "significant portion" of the independent minority shareholders. The court decided this does not require a basic majority but needs assessment of the size and nature of shareholdings backing the action.

Calculating the “Independent Minority”

Justice Knox in Smith v Croft (No 2) described a process for determining the "independent minority." This involves excluding shareholders connected to the alleged misconduct or who are not impartial. The judgment stresses the importance of considering both the count of shareholders and the worth of their shares when determining if the applicant represents a notable part of the independent minority. Here, even though the applicant had backing from a majority of independent minority shareholders by count, the court refused permission because the worth of their shares, compared to the total worth of independent minority shares, was not considered adequate.

Implications for Minority Shareholder Protection

Smith v Croft (No 2) has significant impacts on minority shareholder protection. While the statutory derivative action intends to provide a method to seek redress when wrongdoers manage the company, the case reveals the practical challenges minority shareholders might encounter. The requirement to prove support from a notable part of the independent minority can be a major barrier, particularly when majority shareholders align with alleged wrongdoers. This ruling confirms the boundaries of common law and statutory choices for minority shareholders and demonstrates the necessity for careful planning before initiating such actions.

Comparing Statutory Derivative Actions with Other Choices

Smith v Croft (No 2) contrasts statutory derivative actions with other choices for minority shareholders, such as unfair prejudice petitions under Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 (now Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006). The judgment states that the statutory derivative claim focuses on harms to the company, while unfair prejudice petitions handle shareholder interests. This distinction shows the importance of selecting the correct choice based on the case facts. Cases like Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 clarify the background of the proper plaintiff rule and its restrictions on shareholder actions.

Conclusion

The judgment in Smith v Croft (No 2) reviews the challenges minority shareholders encounter in pursuing derivative claims. The case explains the "significant portion" requirement under the Companies Act 1985 and establishes a process for determining the independent minority. The decision reveals the practical difficulties in obtaining shareholder backing and stresses the need for careful planning in such cases. By confirming the proper plaintiff rule and interpreting statutory rules thoroughly, Smith v Croft (No 2) remains a leading precedent for understanding minority shareholder litigation and managing the prevention of misuse with safeguarding legitimate shareholder interests, particularly concerning principles from cases like Foss v Harbottle. This case is a main resource for legal professionals and scholars involved in corporate law and shareholder rights.

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