header-logo header-logo

27 November 2008 / Victor Joffe KC , James Mather
Issue: 7347 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The vanishing exception

Part one: How rare are exceptions to the no reflective loss principle? ask Victor Joffe QC & James Mather

Reflective loss is the name given to the loss suffered by a shareholder where there is both breach of a duty owed to the company, and breach of a duty owed to the shareholder, but the shareholder’s loss would be made good if the company enforced its rights against the wrongdoer in respect of its loss (see: eg Johnson v Gore Wood [2002] 2 AC 1, Gardner v Parker [2004] 2 BCLC 554). Prime examples of reflective loss are diminution in value of the claimant’s shares, or loss of dividends on shares, but the term extends to “all other payments which the shareholder might have obtained from the company if it had not been deprived of its funds” (see: Johnson v Gore-Wood at [66]). The no reflective loss principle applies to claims brought by a shareholder not only in his capacity as such, but also to claims brought by him as employee or

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll