dc.contributor.author |
Cassim, Rehana
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2024-04-18T09:09:12Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2024-04-18T09:09:12Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2022 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
Cassim, R. (2022). CONFUSION IN THE REMOVAL OF DIRECTORS BY SHAREHOLDERS UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 71 OF 2008: MILLER v NATMED DEFENCE (PTY) LTD. Vol. 139 (4). p. 741-756 |
en |
dc.identifier.issn |
0258-2503 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
ht tps://doi.org/10.4734 8/SAL J/v139/i4 a1 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10500/31013 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
This note critically analyses the judgment in Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd
2022 (2) SA 554 (GJ), in which the court ruled on the validity of the removal of a
director by the company’s sole shareholder. Three issues were in contention: whether
a shareholder must furnish the director with reasons for the proposed resolution to
remove a director from office under s 71 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008; whether a
shorter notice period for the shareholders’ meeting was legally acceptable; and whether
the meeting that was held telephonically was valid. The court ruled that the director’s
removal from office was valid and dismissed his request to be reinstated as a director.
This note critically analyses the judgment and argues that the court misinterpreted
some aspects of s 71 of the Act. |
en |
dc.language.iso |
en |
en |
dc.publisher |
South African Law Journal |
en |
dc.subject |
Removal of directors |
en |
dc.subject |
Shareholder removal |
en |
dc.subject |
Reasons for removal |
en |
dc.subject |
Notice period of meetings |
en |
dc.subject |
Telephonic meetings |
en |
dc.subject |
Damages for loss of office |
en |
dc.subject |
Section 71 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 |
en |
dc.title |
Confusion in the Removal of Directors by Shareholders under the Companies Act 71 of 2008: Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd |
en |
dc.type |
Article |
en |
dc.description.department |
Mercantile Law |
en |