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.
| Property |
Value |
| dbo:abstract |
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. 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. (en) |
| dbo:thumbnail |
wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/EdgarWoodBuilding.jpg?width=300 |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink |
http://www.worldlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1843/478.pdf |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
4511203 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
17101 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1124137300 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:Precedent dbr:Unfair_prejudice dbc:Court_of_Chancery_cases dbr:John_Scott,_1st_Earl_of_Eldon dbr:Richard_Lane_(architect) dbr:Derivative_suit dbr:James_Wigram dbr:Pender_v_Lushington dbr:George_Jessel_(jurist) dbr:Corporate_law dbr:Corporations_Act_2001 dbr:Ultra_vires dbr:Manchester dbr:Companies_Act_2006 dbc:1843_in_British_law dbc:1843_in_case_law dbr:Bankruptcy dbr:Joseph_Adshead dbc:United_Kingdom_company_case_law dbr:Edwards_v_Halliwell dbr:Reflective_loss dbr:Greenhalgh_v_Arderne_Cinemas_Ltd dbr:Shareholders dbr:Majority dbr:Victoria_Park,_Manchester dbr:Smith_v_Croft_(No_2) dbr:UK_company_law dbr:Cestui_que_trust dbr:Derivative_action dbr:General_meeting dbr:Atwool_v_Merryweather dbr:Cockburn_v._Newbridge_Sanitary_Steam_Laundry_Co. dbr:Gambotto_v_WCP_Limited dbr:Preston_v_The_Grand_Collier_Dock_Company dbr:The_Attorney-General_v_Wilson dbr:Wallworth_v_Holt dbr:Daniels_v_Daniels |
| dbp:citations |
67 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:court |
Court of Chancery (en) |
| dbp:dateDecided |
Edgar Wood building, Victoria Park, Manchester (en) |
| dbp:keywords |
Derivative action, separate legal personality (en) |
| dbp:name |
Foss v Harbottle (en) |
| dbp:opinions |
dbr:James_Wigram |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:UK_law dbt:Convert dbt:Cquote dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Infobox_court_case |
| dcterms:subject |
dbc:Court_of_Chancery_cases dbc:1843_in_British_law dbc:1843_in_case_law dbc:United_Kingdom_company_case_law |
| gold:hypernym |
dbr:Precedent |
| rdf:type |
yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity |
| rdfs:comment |
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. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
Foss v Harbottle (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
freebase:Foss v Harbottle wikidata:Foss v Harbottle http://pa.dbpedia.org/resource/ਫੋਸ_ਬਨਾਮ_ਹਰਬੋਟਲ https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4jaAk |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:Foss_v_Harbottle?oldid=1124137300&ns=0 |
| foaf:depiction |
wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/EdgarWoodBuilding.jpg |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:Foss_v_Harbottle |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of |
dbr:Harbottle_(disambiguation) |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of |
dbr:Foss_v_harbottle dbr:Foss_v._Harbottle |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:Richard_Lane_(architect) dbr:Derivative_suit dbr:James_Wigram dbr:Pender_v_Lushington dbr:Estmanco_(Kilner_House)_Ltd_v_Greater_London_Council dbr:1843_in_the_United_Kingdom dbr:Corporate_litigation_in_the_United_Kingdom dbr:Thomas_Hare_(political_scientist) dbr:Anguillan_company_law dbr:Breckland_Group_Holdings_Ltd_v_London_and_Suffolk_Properties dbr:Cayman_Islands_company_law dbr:Isle_of_Wight_Rly_Co_v_Tahourdin dbr:Joseph_Adshead dbr:List_of_Supreme_Court_of_Judicature_cases dbr:Harbottle_(disambiguation) dbr:Attorney_General_v_Davy dbr:Edwards_v_Halliwell dbr:Hodgson_v_NALGO dbr:Tontine dbr:Greenhalgh_v_Arderne_Cinemas_Ltd dbr:Oppression_remedy dbr:Sevilleja_v_Marex_Financial_Ltd dbr:Foss_v_harbottle dbr:Smith_v_Croft_(No_2) dbr:Wallersteiner_v_Moir_(No_2) dbr:Unfair_prejudice_in_United_Kingdom_company_law dbr:United_Kingdom_company_law dbr:Foss_v._Harbottle |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:Foss_v_Harbottle |
