Some members of the National Union of Vehicle Builders sued the executive committee for increasing fees. The cases falling within the general ambit of the rule are subject to certain exceptions. First, if the action is ultra vires a member may sue. As explained by Jenkins LJ in Edwards v Halliwell 1950, the rule of Foss v Harbottle 1843 has two limbs, which are that 1. when a wrong has been committed against the company, the proper claimant in respect of that wrong is the company itself, 2. and that if a mere majority of the members of the company is in favour of what has been done, then the matter falls. This was relevant here. First, if the action is ultra vires a member may sue. Some members of the National Union of Vehicle Builders sued the executive committee for increasing fees. Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064 is a UK labour law and UK company law case about the internal organisation of a trade union, or a company, and litigation by members to make an executive follow the organisation's internal rules. But there are exceptions to the rule. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Edwards v Halliwell". An example of this is Edwards v Halliwell (above). Edwards v Halliwell [1950] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 23, 2018 May 28, 2019. There are various examples of fraud on the minority. Here it was a personal right that the members paid a set amount in fees and retain membership as they stood before the purported alterations. Instead a delegate meeting had purported to allow the increase without a ballot. Rule 19 of the union constitution required a ballot and a two third approval level by members. Edwards v Halliwell 2 All ER 1064, 1067). As Romer J. pointed out, the reason for that exception is clear, because otherwise, if the rule were applied in its full rigour, a company, which, by its directors, had broken its own regulations by doing something without a special resolution which could only be done validly by a special resolution could assert that it alone was the proper plaintiff in any consequent action and the effect would be to allow a company acting in breach of its articles to do de facto by ordinary resolution that which according to its own regulations could only be done by special resolution. That is the exception noted by Romer J. in Cotter v National Union of Seamen. Jenkins LJ granted the members' application. Third, as pointed out by Romer J in Cotter v National Union of Seamen[1] a company should not be able to bypass a special procedure or majority in its own articles. In my judgment, therefore, the reliance on the rule in Foss v Harbottle in the present case may be regarded as misconceived on that ground alone. Last but not the least, the fourth exception deals with a situation where a ‘fraud on the minority’ has been committed by the majority who themselves control the company. Rule 19 of the union constitution required a ballot and a two-thirds approval level by members. ‘The classic definition of the rule in Foss v Harbottle is stated in the judgment of Jenkins LJ in Edwards v Halliwell 2 All ER 1064 at 1066 – 7 as follows. Second, if the wrongdoers are in control of the union's right to sue there is a "fraud on the minority", and an individual member may take up a case. This is the basis of the decision in Edwards v Halliwell 2 All ER 1064. It has been noted in the course of argument that in cases where the act complained of is wholly ultra vires the company or association, the rule has no application because there is no question of the transaction being confirmed by any majority. Here it was a personal right that the members paid a set amount in fees and retain membership as they stood before the purported alterations. Cookie policy. He held that under the rule in Foss v Harbottle the union itself is prima facie the proper plaintiff and if a simple majority can make an action binding, then no case can be brought. He held that under the rule in Foss v Harbottle the union itself is prima facie the proper plaintiff and if a simple majority can make an action binding, then no case can be brought. And fourth, as here, if there is an invasion of a personal right. Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2020, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. It has been further pointed out that where what has been done amounts to what is generally called in these cases, a fraud on the minority and the wrongdoers are themselves in control of the company, the rule is relaxed in favour of the aggrieved minority who are allowed to bring what is known as a Minority Shareholder's action on behalf of themselves and all others. And fourth, as here, if there is an invasion of a personal right. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064 is a UK labour law and UK company law case about the internal organisation of a trade union, or a company, and litigation by members to make an executive follow the organisation's internal rules. Second, if the wrongdoers are in control of the union's right to sue there is a "fraud on the minority", and an individual member may take up a case. Jenkins LJ granted the members' application. The rule in Foss v Harbottle, as I understand it, comes to no more than this. In my judgment, it is implicit in the rule that the matter relied on as constituting the cause of action should be a cause of action properly belonging to the general body of corporators or members of the company or association as opposed to a cause of action which some individual member can assert in his own right. He pointed out that the rule did not prevent an individual member from suing if the matter in respect of which he was suing was one which could validly be done or sanctioned, not by a simple majority of the members of the company or association, but only by some special majority, as, for instance, in the case of a limited company under the Companies Act, a special resolution duly passed as such. In Edwards v. Halliwell, 2 All ER 1064 case, Jenkins, L.J observed: “First, the proper plaintiff is an action of a wrong alleged to be done to a company or association of persons is prima facie the company or the association of persons itself. The law in this particular is the same in both categories of law. If, on the other hand, a simple majority of members of the company or association is against what has been done, then there is no reason why the company or association itself should not sue. Instead a delegate meeting had purported to allow the increase without a ballot. But there are exceptions to the rule. This was relevant here. In fact, the case involves a trade union rather than a company.