||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 310 (Jan)
||Nigel Dougherty (instructed by Wragge & Co) for the claimant.
||Catherine Roberts (instructed by Kent Jones & Done) for the first defendant.
||Jonathan Russen (instructed by Williamson & Soden) for the second defendant.
||31 January 2002
Company - Articles of association - Alteration - Claimant company altering certain article in articles of association - Effect of alteration on voting and non-voting shares - Whether effect of alteration of article was to trigger a right of enfranchisement in the non-voting shareholders.
It was well-established that in the interpretation of a contract, words should be given their 'natural and ordinary meaning', if however, 'detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract was going to lead to a conclusion that flouted business, commonsense, it should be made to yield to business commonsense'. In the instant case, the only way that would be achieved was by construing the relevant article as having certain words omitted from it, and once those words were added, the article assumed a commonsense meaning reflecting a true sense of what it was intended to mean.
- 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