ABSTRACT
It has already been mentioned54 that there is strong authority, particularly in the older cases, to the effect that the right to vote is a property right being attached or incident to a share which, itself, is a piece of intangible property or a chose in action. Therefore, in voting, shareholders can vote in whatever way they think fit and from whatever motive. So, in Pender v Lushington,55 concerning a shareholder’s right to have his votes recorded, Jessel MR was able to state:
Again, in Northern Counties Securities Ltd v Jackson and Steeple Ltd,58 Walton J reiterated the property view:
And, in Phillips v Manufacturers Securities Ltd,60 because the right to vote was viewed as a property right, Lord Cozens-Hardy MR was able to cite Bradford Corporation v Pickles61 to support the contention that, as there is no doctrine of abuse of property rights in English law, voting by shareholders could not be
impugned on the grounds that it was causing harm or loss to others.62 It is even the case that a person who is a director can, nevertheless, vote as a shareholder in general meeting in whatever way he pleases, even though he may be ratifying a sale to himself which is otherwise voidable by reason of the fact he holds office as director.63
