Foss v Harbottle
Case in English corporate law / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Foss v Harbottle?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company, the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the proper plaintiff rule", and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the "derivative action", which allows a minority shareholder to bring a claim on behalf of the company. This applies in situations of "wrongdoer control" and is, in reality, the only true exception to the rule. The rule in Foss v Harbottle is best seen as the starting point for minority shareholder remedies.
Foss v Harbottle | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Chancery |
Decided | Edgar Wood building, Victoria Park, Manchester |
Citation(s) | (1843) 67 ER 189, (1843) 2 Hare 461 |
Case opinions | |
Wigram VC | |
Keywords | |
Derivative action, separate legal personality |
The rule has now largely been partly codified and displaced in the United Kingdom by the Companies Act 2006 sections 260–263, setting out a statutory derivative claim.