• At Kemp Little, we are known for our ability to serve the very particular needs of a large but diverse technology client base. Our hands-on industry know-how makes us a good fit with many of the world's biggest technology and digital media businesses, yet means we are equally relevant to companies with a technology bias, in sectors such as professional services, financial services, retail, travel and healthcare.
  • Kemp Little specialises in the technology and digital media sectors and provides a range of legal services that are crucial to fast-moving, innovative businesses.Our blend of sector awareness, technical excellence and responsiveness, means we are regularly ranked as a leading firm by directories such as Legal 500, Chambers and PLC Which Lawyer. Our practice areas cover a wide range of legal issues and advice.
  • Our Commercial Technology team has established itself as one of the strongest in the UK. We are ranked in Legal 500, Chambers & Partners and PLC Which Lawyer, with four of our partners recommended.
  • Our team provides practical and commercial advice founded on years of experience and technical know-how to technology and digital media companies that need to be alert to the rules and regulations of competition law.
  • Our Corporate Practice has a reputation for delivering sound legal advice, backed up with extensive industry experience and credentials, to get the best results from technology and digital media transactions.
  • In the fast-changing world of employment law our clients need practical, commercial and cost-effective advice. They get this from our team of employment law professionals.
  • Our team of leading IP advisors deliver cost-effective, strategic and commercial advice to ensure that your IP assets are protected and leveraged to add real value to your business.
  • Our litigation practice advises on all aspects of dispute resolution, with a particular focus on ownership, exploitation and infringement of intellectual property rights and commercial disputes in the technology sector.
  • We have an industry-leading reputation for our outsourcing expertise. Our professionals deliver credible legal advice to providers and acquirers of IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) services.
  • We work alongside companies, many with disruptive technologies, that seek funding, as well as with the venture capital firms, institutional investors and corporate ventures that want to invest in exciting business opportunities.
  • Our regulatory specialists work alongside Kemp Little’s corporate and commercial professionals to help meet their compliance obligations.
  • With a service that is commercial and responsive to our clients’ needs, you will find our tax advice easy to understand, cost-effective and geared towards maximising your tax benefits.
  • At Kemp Little, we advise clients in diverse sectors where technology is fundamental to the ongoing success of their businesses.They include companies that provide technology as a service and businesses where the use of technology is key to their business model, enabling them to bring their product or service to market.
  • We bring our commercial understanding of digital business models, our legal expertise and our reputation for delivering high quality, cost-effective services to this dynamic sector.
  • Acting for market leaders and market changers within the media industry, we combine in-depth knowledge of the structural technology that underpins content delivery and the impact of digitisation on the rights of producers and consumers.
  • We understand the risks facing this sector and work with our clients to conquer those challenges. Testimony to our success is the continued growth in our team of professionals and the clients we serve.
  • We advise at the forefront of the technological intersection between life sciences and healthcare. We advise leading technology and data analytics providers, healthcare institutions as well as manufacturers of medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnological products.
  • For clients operating in the online sector, our teams are structured to meet their commercial, financing, M&A, competition and regulatory, employment and intellectual property legal needs.
  • Our focus on technology makes us especially well positioned to give advice on the legal aspects of digital marketing. We advise on high-profile, multi-channel, cross-border cases and on highly complex campaigns.
  • The mobile and telecoms sector is fast changing and hugely dependent on technology advances. We help mobile and wireless and fixed telecoms clients to tackle the legal challenges that this evolving sector presents.
  • Whether ERP, Linux or Windows; software or infrastructure as a service in the cloud, in a virtualised environment, or as a mobile or service-oriented architecture, we have the experience to resolve legal issues across the spectrum of commercial computer platforms.
  • Our clients trust us to apply our solutions and know-how to help them make the best use of technology in structuring deals, mitigating key risks to their businesses and in achieving their commercial objectives.
  • We have extensive experience of advising customers and suppliers in the retail sector on technology development, licensing and supply projects, and in advising on all aspects of procurement and online operations.
  • Our legal professionals work alongside social media providers and users in relation to the commercial, privacy, data, advertising, intellectual property, employment and corporate issues that arise in this dynamic sector.
  • Our years of working alongside diverse software clients have given us an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the software marketplace, market practice and alternative negotiating strategies.
  • Working with direct providers of travel services, including aggregators, facilitators and suppliers of transport and technology, our team has developed a unique specialist knowledge of the sector
  • Your life as an entrepreneur is full of daily challenges as you seek to grow your business. One of the key strengths of our firm is that we understand these challenges.
  • Kemp Little is trusted by some of the world’s leading luxury brands and some of the most innovative e-commerce retailers changing the face of the industry.
  • HR Bytes is an exclusive, comprehensive, online service that will provide you with a wide range of practical, insightful and current employment law information. HR Bytes members get priority booking for events, key insight and a range of employment materials for free.
  • FlightDeck is our portal designed especially with start-up and emerging technology businesses in mind to help you get your business up and running in the right way. We provide a free pack of all the things no-one tells you and things they don’t give away to get you started.

Unfair prejudice: Waiver of the statutory right to claim unfair prejudice

Minority shareholders are afforded certain protections by statute, in particular, the right to bring an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.  This right was designed to deal with disputes between the members of private companies (usually minority shareholders) who may be the subject of oppression but are prevented by the articles or a shareholders’ agreement from taking effective steps to resolve their difficulties or to realise the value of their investment in the company by a sale of their shares.

Section 994 provides that: "A member of a company may apply to the Court by petition for an order...... on the ground (a) that the company's affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself), or (b) that an actual or proposed act or omission of the company (including an act or omission on its behalf) is or would be so prejudicial."

Common examples of what may constitute unfairly prejudicial conduct are:

  • excessive remuneration of majority shareholders in their position as directors;
  • the majority shareholder awarding excessive financial benefits to him or herself;
  • failure to properly pay dividends;
  • misapplication of company funds or property;
  • diversion of business to another company in which the majority shareholder holds an interest;
  • abuses of power and breaches of a company’s articles of association.

In addition to the protection provided by statute, it is typical for shareholders to enter into a shareholders’ agreement seeking further protection.  However, a shareholders’ agreement may provide for any disputes arising under the agreement to be arbitrated, thus preventing the shareholder from applying to the court to bring a claim for unfair prejudice.  In this article, we consider whether a shareholder can agree to waive such a statutory right. 

Previously, there were two conflicting first instance High Court judgments on this issue. In Re Vocam Europe Ltd [1998] BCC 396, the petitioners were minority shareholders who had been removed as directors of a joint venture company. There was a shareholders' agreement under which all disputes between the parties whether or not arising under the agreement were to be resolved by arbitration. The High Court judge ordered a stay of the unfair prejudice petition. 

The case of Exeter City Association Football Club Ltd v. Football Conference Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 2910, the rules of the Nationwide Conference League under which a member club was required to pay football creditors in full as part of any corporate voluntary arrangement (CVA) had caused Exeter City unfair prejudice because it exposed the club to an application by HM Revenue & Customs for the revocation of the CVA.  The Football Conference then applied for a stay of the petition under s.9(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the dispute was referable to arbitration under the rules of the Football Association.  The High Court in this case refused a stay on the basis that the statutory rights conferred on shareholders to apply for relief were inalienable and could not be diminished or removed by contract (such as an arbitration agreement) or otherwise.

The above two conflicting cases were considered by the High Court in the case of Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Sir David Richards and The Football Association Premier League Ltd [2010] EWHC 3111 (Ch).  The Fulham decision arose from Peter Crouch’s transfer from Portsmouth FC to Tottenham Hotspur FC.  Fulham FC contested that transfer alleging that Sir David Richards, the chairman of the Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL), had acted unfairly in the transfer negotiations.  By doing so, Fulham alleged that both he and the FAPL had unfairly promoted the interests of one member club over another in breach of its articles of association and its rules (FAPL Rules).  Both the FAPL Rules and the FA Rules provided for members to arbitrate disputes.  On application to the High Court, the High Court followed the earlier case of Re Vocam Europe Ltd [1998] and a stay of the unfair prejudice petition was granted at first instance. 

On appeal, the question for the Court of Appeal was whether it had been open to the parties to agree that matters giving rise to an unfair prejudice petition would be referred to arbitration, and thereby to fetter the shareholder's right to bring a section 994 petition.  The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal (Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2011] EWCA Civ 855) and stayed the unfair prejudice petition to allow referral of the matters to arbitration.  Patten LJ, delivering the leading judgment, held that section 994 ("a member of a company may apply to the court") should not be construed as granting an unfettered right of access to the court.  Further, he held that "there is no statutory restriction or rule of public policy which prevents the parties from agreeing to submit such disputes to arbitration". 

This result is in accordance with the judicial tendency to uphold arbitration clauses, unless there is clear language to exclude certain matters from the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.  On further application to appeal by the FCC, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

Based on the above, it therefore seems likely that the court will uphold an agreement by the shareholders to waive their right to bring an unfair prejudice claim.  In practice, the Court of Appeal’s decision should be taken into account while drafting dispute resolution clauses in shareholders’ agreements and other constitutional documents, in particular when deciding whether or not to include an arbitration clause.

For further information, please contact Vidya Rao.