ABSTRACT
It was repeatedly held, under s.210 of the 1948 Act, that the oppression to members had to be suffered by the petitioner in his capacity as a member as such and not, for example, as a director or creditor.1 Such an interpretation resulted in the remedy sometimes being denied in the very circumstances in which it was most needed, such as where a shareholder was denied a role in the board. This was particularly so in the case of a small private company where the primary interest of the members was to secure for themselves remunerative employment as directors, the payment of dividends being relatively less important. And it was primarily to remedy this type of oppression in the private company that the Cohen Committee recommended s.210.2 Despite the thorough analysis of s.210 made by the Jenkins Committee, no recommendation was made with respect to this aspect of its operation.
