The assertion is based on the fact that the affairs of the company were, will or will be conducted in a manner “unjustly prejudicial” to its shareholders or some of them (and at least to the petitioner). This gives the courts options, including the obligation of the shareholder found that the other emissaries to buy the shares of the other, or even the injunction that the company must be sold. Section 996 also expressly allows the Tribunal to ensure that the company stops the harmful conduct or takes steps to correct the injustice. In addition, a shareholder who votes or sells his shares does not represent the business of the company, regardless of the outcome of such acts for other shareholders. When considering injustice and prejudice, a court must: Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 provides that minority shareholders can initiate a petition in the conduct of corporate business in a way that unduly disadvantages them or other members. The heading states that the unjustifiable damage must extend to the business of the company. These words are permissive to converge by reference to commercial reality and not by legal kindness. If you are a shareholder in a limited company and are caught up in a dispute with your co-shareholders, you should check the shareholders` and by-law (if any) to determine if there are provisions that help resolve the issues. Even if there are no savings provisions in the constitutional documents, it can still be abolished. The power to authorize civil proceedings subject to the conditions laid down by the Court of Justice may be a particularly useful remedy, as it allows the company to continue an action, which means that the majority of the costs of this action would then be borne by the company and not by the petitioner. However, in practice, the most common remedy for a successful petitioner is to order the acquisition of his shares by those who are at the origin of the unfair bias. However, the evaluation of actions can be a significant problem, as there are many conflicting evaluation methods.

Courts have generally held that actions should be fairly assessed to a chief who is generally the time when prejudice against the petitioner began. The Court may also order that the assessment be conducted on the basis that the unwarranted prejudicial conduct (which may have devalued the company`s actions) did not take place. In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for the Court to order the majority shareholder to sell its shares in the petitioner, when it is much less frequent. The proceedings for unfair bias are initiated as part of a petition procedure.