The Court refused interlocutory injunctions sought by a 10% minority shareholder to restrain the 90% majority shareholder from appointing an additional director or acting on behalf of the company, finding no serious question to be tried where the majority sought only appointment (not removal) of a director through lawful constitutional mechanisms. On the cross-application, the Court ordered under s 249G that it convene a meeting of members, holding that impracticability was established where the minority shareholder and sole director had deliberately declined to attend two requisitioned meetings and blocked a share transfer designed to cure the quorum deficiency, and that the Court should not parse a single notice into constituent resolutions when assessing impracticability. The Court left expressly unresolved whether s 233 confers power to grant interlocutory relief before a s 232 state of affairs has been found to exist.
The full text is available to signed-in members.