In Byers v Chen (2021) UKPC 4 the Privy Council affirmed, at paras 64/65, the Duomatic principle, 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. The Privy Council also affirmed, at paras 68/69, that a director who has given the company proper notice of his or her resignation is not entitled to withdraw that notice, save with the consent of the company or possibly the ultimate beneficial owner.
Subscribe
Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We’ll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in ourĀ privacy policy.
"*" indicates required fields
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (54)
- Council Tax and Rates (74)
- Decision making and Contracts (264)
- Elections and Bylaws (33)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (117)
- General (17)
- Housing (147)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (104)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (218)
- Land, Goods and Services (73)
- Local Authority Powers (74)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (153)
- Social Care (74)
- Standards (23)
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024
Privacy | Terms & Conditions | © 11KBW 2024