9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of company's articles of association regarding interrogatories, applicability of Article 16 to members and non-members, impact of agreements on interrogatories.
In this judgment delivered by Crossman, J., the main issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 16 of the company's articles of association concerning the permissibility of asking certain interrogatories. The judge examines a previous case where a similar provision was considered and distinguishes between the reasons for directors' actions and the grounds for their objections. The judge determines that the wording of the current article, which states "shall not be bound to specify the grounds," is stronger than "without assigning any reason," indicating that directors are excused from naming the specific grounds for their actions. This leads to the conclusion that the interrogatories sought by the plaintiff are not permissible under the article, as they require the directors to specify the grounds, which they are not obligated to do. Furthermore, the judge addresses the argument that Article 16 only applies to members of the company and not to non-members seeking registration. However, the judge rejects this argument, stating that Article 16 applies to anyone seeking registration, whether a current member or a prospective one, as it outlines the conditions for registration. Therefore, the protection provided by Article 16 extends to all individuals seeking membership in the company, regardless of their current status. Lastly, the judgment considers the impact of agreements on the ability to request interrogatories. The judge refers to a previous case to support the notion that agreements can restrict the scope of discovery, including the ability to request specific information through interrogatories. The judge concludes that allowing the interrogatories in this case would override the terms to which the parties are bound, whether as current members or potential members of the company. Therefore, the judge decides not to permit the interrogatories based on the existing agreements and rules governing the situation. Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of the company's articles of association, the applicability of Article 16 to all individuals seeking membership, and the impact of agreements on the ability to request interrogatories, ultimately leading to the decision not to allow the interrogatories in this case.
|
