||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 463 (Jul)
||John Dagnall (instructed by Boyd & Hutchinson) for the claimants.
||Leslie Kosmin QC and Catherine Roberts (instructed by Manches) for the defendants.
||31 July 2001
Company - Director - Power - Exercise of independent judgment - Claimant directors seeking specific performance of alleged agreement allocating shares - Defendant director claiming undue influence - Company seeking repayment of bonuses paid to claimants without agreement of shareholders - Whether agreement valid - Whether claimants entitled to bonuses.
On the evidence, the relationship between the parties attracted the presumption of undue influence, and cast upon the presumed influencer the onus of showing that the agreement between directors of the company was entered into by the defendant director with a full understanding of its implications. The claimant directors had failed to discharge that burden and prove that the defendant director had signed a document allocating them shares in the company independently. However, the claimants were entitled to retain the bonuses given to them as directors of the company as a result of the application of the Duomatic principle.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary