Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Article 205 - Companies Act 1963

  • 26-04-2012 4:04am
    #1
    John_10
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭


    Hi,

    In relation to Article 205, remedies in cases of opression as a director in the Companies Acts 1963, what would constitute opression ?

    Would the CEO acknowledging that it was stated a director was not to have involvment in the business constitute opression and acknowledging conflict was induced by such a statement ?

    Thank you,

    John


Comments

  • #2
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    The test is set out in the Act in s.205.

    The most recent detailed decision can be found on courts.ie, judgments section, carefully search Fanning AND Murtagh.

    I believe either Irvine, Dunne or McGovern JJ . wrote a full analysis of the law.

    In my view it is more to do with minority shareholder oppression, rather than Directors' duties.


  • #3
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Do you mean Section 205 of the Companies Act 1963?


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tom Young wrote: »
    The test is set out in the Act in s.205.

    The most recent detailed decision can be found on courts.ie, judgments section, carefully search Fanning AND Murtagh.

    I believe either Irvine, Dunne or McGovern JJ . wrote a full analysis of the law.

    In my view it is more to do with minority shareholder oppression, rather than Directors' duties.

    Isn't Fanning v Murtagh about derivative actions and the leave application specifically?


  • #5
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Murph's Restaurant is always good for some mileage here.

    Recently Re Charles Kelly is an interesting yarn for our times.


  • #6
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Isn't Fanning v Murtagh about derivative actions and the leave application specifically?

    Yes, you're dead on. I was thinking derivative action instead of proper oppression. Ignore that OP - slightly off target but relevant in part to s.205.

    There are a few other cases on this, but as usual, if it's a live issue seek professional legal advice.

    Tom


  • Advertisement
Advertisement