![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_OoFgZDOaX65rndoX4Rh4lexRDyBX722WpomKG4GRnli3pEEkZCbOjwdqS7oxaOEs1eqITokfLAgf_cZc2668VgsaAebSx5wEGqU5cUfv2YMa7CqqOIu3Dls54LSe7-fwtk3d3bf9EhxY/s610/uk-lgflag.gif)
Second, the court considered the Duomatic principle, which takes it name from Re Duomatic Ltd [1969] 2 Ch 365, and in which Buckley J said that "where it can be shown that all shareholders who have a right to attend and vote at a general meeting of the company assent to some matter which a general meeting of the company could carry into effect, that assent is as binding as a resolution in general meeting would be" (p. 373). Lord Justice Newey assumed - as he did when a High Court judge in Rolfe v Bernard Samuel Rolfe Tulsesense Ltd [2010] EWHC 244 (Ch) - that the assent of the beneficial owner of a share could meet Duomatic requirements.
No comments:
Post a Comment