The Supreme Court of Appeal gave judgment last Friday in Grancy Property Limited v Manala (665/12) [2013] ZASCA 57: see here or here (pdf). The case concerned the operation of section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, which provides that a shareholder or director may apply to the court for relief in respect of oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct. The Supreme Court held that the Western Cape High Court (Cape Town) had erred in deciding that a shareholder had failed to make out a case for relief and in doing so considered, amongst other things, the scope of relief that could be provided. In the course of his judgment, Petse JA observed "... there is much to be said for the proposition that s 163 must be construed in a manner that will advance the remedy that it provides rather than limit it." (para 26). A summary of the decision is available here (pdf).
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
South Africa: relief for unfairly prejudicial conduct
The Supreme Court of Appeal gave judgment last Friday in Grancy Property Limited v Manala (665/12) [2013] ZASCA 57: see here or here (pdf). The case concerned the operation of section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, which provides that a shareholder or director may apply to the court for relief in respect of oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct. The Supreme Court held that the Western Cape High Court (Cape Town) had erred in deciding that a shareholder had failed to make out a case for relief and in doing so considered, amongst other things, the scope of relief that could be provided. In the course of his judgment, Petse JA observed "... there is much to be said for the proposition that s 163 must be construed in a manner that will advance the remedy that it provides rather than limit it." (para 26). A summary of the decision is available here (pdf).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment