Conditional Permission in Derivative Action Rejected: Boston Trust Company Ltd & Anor v. Verhoef [2021] EWCA Civ 1176
Introduction
Boston Trust Company Ltd & Anor v. Verhoef is a significant case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on July 28, 2021. This case involved an appeal against a High Court order which granted conditional permission to continue a derivative action initiated by the claimants. The central issue revolved around the claimants' standing to sue on behalf of subsidiaries of Tellisford Limited and whether the court could conditionally permit the continuation of such derivative claims pending rectification of the company's share register.
Summary of the Judgment
The claimants, trustees of the Erutuf Trust, sought to pursue derivative claims against the directors of Tellisford Limited, alleging misappropriation of assets from its subsidiaries. Initially, the High Court Judge, Mr. Stephen Houseman QC, granted conditional permission to continue the derivative claims, stipulating that the claimants must become registered shareholders of Tellisford, either through a rectification of the share register or otherwise.
The defendants appealed this conditional permission. The Court of Appeal scrutinized whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant such conditional permission and whether it was appropriate to do so. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal set aside the conditional permission, holding that the proper course was to adjourn or stay the permission application pending the determination of the rectification of the share register, rather than granting permission subject to conditions.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The judgment referenced several important precedents, including:
- Re Starlight Developers Ltd [2007] - Addressed the retrospective effect of rectification orders in share registers.
- Re Sussex Brick Company [1904] - Established foundational principles regarding membership and shareholding for legal purposes.
- Fort Gilkicker Ltd [2013] EWHC 348 (Ch) - Pertained to double derivative claims and the necessity of permission to continue such claims.
- Abouraya v Sigmund [2014] EWHC 277 (Ch) - Discussed the exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle concerning derivative actions.
- Foss v Harbottle (1843) - The seminal case establishing the rule that individual shareholders cannot sue in the name of the company unless exceptions apply.
These precedents influenced the Court of Appeal's reasoning, particularly in determining the proper procedure for derivative claims and the requirements for claimant standing.
Legal Reasoning
The Court of Appeal analyzed whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to grant conditional permission under CPR 19.9 and CPR 3.1(3). It concluded that while the High Court might have certain case management powers, the core issue was whether it’s appropriate to conditionally permit a derivative claim when the claimant lacks standing.
The appellate judges emphasized that standing is a threshold issue that must be resolved before considering other aspects of permission to continue. Granting conditional permission, in this context, effectively assumed the claimant had standing, which was not the case at the time of the initial order.
The Court thus held that the appropriate course was to stay or adjourn the permission application pending the outcome of the rectification of the share register, rather than attaching a condition to the permission itself.
Impact
This judgment clarifies the procedural approach courts should take when dealing with derivative claims where the claimant's standing is in question. It establishes that conditional permission is not an appropriate mechanism to resolve standing issues. Instead, courts should adjourn or stay such applications pending the resolution of the claimant's standing, such as through rectification of the share register.
The decision reinforces the importance of resolving threshold issues before delving into the merits of derivative claims. It also affects future cases by setting a clear procedural pathway, ensuring that derivative claims are only permitted when the claimant has unequivocal standing.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Derivative Claim
A derivative claim is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a company to address wrongs done to the company. Instead of suing in their own name, the shareholder is stepping into the company’s shoes to seek redress.
Standing
Standing refers to the legal right to bring a lawsuit. In this context, it means the claimant must be a registered shareholder of the company to initiate a derivative claim.
Rectification of Share Register
Rectification of the share register involves correcting the official records to accurately reflect who the shareholders of a company are. This is crucial for establishing standing in derivative claims.
Conditional Permission
Conditional permission refers to the court’s authorization to proceed with a case subject to certain conditions being met. In this case, it was the condition that the claimants become registered shareholders.
Stay or Adjourn
To stay a case means to temporarily halt proceedings. To adjourn is to postpone the proceedings to a later date. Both are procedural tools to manage the timing of a case.
Conclusion
The Boston Trust Company Ltd & Anor v. Verhoef decision is pivotal in delineating the procedural boundaries for derivative claims, particularly concerning claimant standing. The Court of Appeal firmly established that courts should not issue conditional permissions for derivative actions when the claimant lacks standing. Instead, the appropriate response is to adjourn or stay the application until the claimant's standing is definitively established, such as through rectification of the share register. This ensures that derivative claims are pursued by parties with the rightful standing, maintaining the integrity of such legal actions and providing clear guidance for future cases.
Comments