skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

OPPRESSION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS- REFLECTIONS ON BLISSET v DANIEL

Denning law journal, 2012-11, Vol.19 (1), p.5-31 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

2012. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. ;ISSN: 0269-1922 ;EISSN: 2047-2765 ;DOI: 10.5750/dlj.v19i1.376

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    OPPRESSION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS- REFLECTIONS ON BLISSET v DANIEL
  • Author: Hollington QC, Robin
  • Subjects: Stockholders
  • Is Part Of: Denning law journal, 2012-11, Vol.19 (1), p.5-31
  • Description: The leading modern case on the law relating to the rights of minority shareholders is the decision of the House of Lords in O’Neill v Phillips, in which Lord Hoffmann, giving the only speech, appeared to place heavy reliance upon the seminal speech of Lord Wilberforce in Re Westbourne Galleries Ltd.   The main purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the reasoning of Lord Hoffmann with that of Lord Wilberforce.  It is proposed to begin with a close look at the old case of Blisset v Daniel, and to analyse the use to which that authority was put by Lord Hoffmann and Lord Wilberforce.  It is proposed to conclude by considering the question whether the reasoning of Lord Hoffmann in O’Neill v Phillips is, or was indeed ever meant by him to be, of general or wide application.
  • Publisher: Buckingham: The University of Buckingham Press
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 0269-1922
    EISSN: 2047-2765
    DOI: 10.5750/dlj.v19i1.376
  • Source: AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central
    Directory of Open Access Journals

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait