Foss vs Harbottle (1843) Case Analysis

Last Updated on May 13, 2025
Download As PDF
IMPORTANT LINKS
Landmark Judgements
Advocates Act
Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Civil Procedure Code
Company Law
Constitutional Law
Dk Basu vs State of West Bengal Golaknath vs State of Punjab Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala Selvi vs State of Karnataka Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan State of Up vs Raj Narain Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh Dc Wadhwa vs State of Bihar Mc Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Kedarnath vs State of Bihar Kharak Singh vs State of Up State of Rajasthan vs Vidyawati Kasturi Lal vs State of Up Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan Mr Balaji vs State of Mysore Ram Jawaya vs State of Punjab Bhikaji vs State of Mp Lata Singh vs State of Up Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs State of Bombay Anil Rai vs State of Bihar Khatri vs State of Bihar R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa State of Karnataka vs Umadevi Rajbala vs State of Haryana Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka Jagmohan vs State of Up Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi Shamsher vs State of Punjab Tma Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka Jagpal Singh vs State of Punjab Automobile Transport vs State of Rajasthan State Trading Corporation of India vs Commercial Tax officer Dhulabhai vs State of Mp Joseph vs State of Kerala State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kathi Raning Rawat vs State of Saurashtra Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh Ep Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu State of West Bengal vs Union of India Pa Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra Ratilal vs State of Bombay Veena Sethi vs State of Bihar State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali Pucl vs State of Maharashtra Lk Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan Nalsa vs Union of India Joseph Shine vs Union of India Shayara Bano vs Union of India Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs Union of India Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India Ks Puttaswamy vs Union of India Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Sr Bommai vs Union of India Lily Thomas vs Union of India​ Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration​ M Nagaraj vs Union of India​ Kaushal Kishore vs State of Up Zee Telefilms vs Union of India Bcci vs Cricket Association of Bihar Shakti Vahini vs Union of India​ Animal Welfare Board of India vs Union of India​ T Devadasan vs Union of India Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain Chintaman Rao vs State of Mp Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India Som Prakash vs Union of India Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs Ashutosh Agnihotri Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh Balram Singh vs Union of India Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra Anjum Kadari vs Union of India Omkar vs The Union of India V Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India Sita Soren vs Union of India Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu Jaya Thakur vs Union of India Ameena Begum vs The State Of Telangana Cbi vs Rr Kishore Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Office Of Lieutenant Governor Of Delhi Keshavan Madhava Menon vs State Of Bombay Kishore Samrite vs State Of Up Md Rahim Ali Abdur Rahim vs The State Of Assam Mineral Area Development Authority vs Steel Authority Of India
Contempt of Courts Act
Contract Law
Copyright Act
Criminal Procedure Code
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar Ak Gopalan vs State of Madras Sakiri Vasu vs State of Up State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab Pyare Lal Bhargava vs State of Rajasthan Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab Joginder Kumar vs State of Up Lalita vs State of Up Kashmira Singh vs State of Punjab Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam Rajesh vs State of Haryana Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat Dharampal vs State of Haryana Dudhnath Pandey vs State of Up State of Karnataka vs Yarappa Reddy Rekha Murarka vs State of West Bengal Mallikarjun Kodagali vs State of Karnataka State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar​ Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab Ar Antulay vs Rs Nayak Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd Quasim Saleem Bhai vs State of Maharashtra​ State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi Gurcharan Singh vs State Delhi Admn​ Central Bureau of Investigation vs Vikas Mishra Satender Kumar Antil vs Cbi Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh vs State of Gujarat​ Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation Devu G Nair vs The State of Kerala Sharif Ahmad vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary
Environmental Law
Forest Conservation Act
Hindu Law
Partnership Act
Indian Evidence Act
Indian Penal Code
Km Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab State of Maharashtra vs Mh George Amrit Singh vs State of Punjab Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab Gian Singh vs State of Punjab Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab State of Maharashtra vs Mohd Yakub S Varadarajan vs State of Madras Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab State of Tamil Nadu vs Suhas Katti Suresh vs State of Up Rupali Devi vs State of Up Alamgir vs State of Bihar Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand Major Singh vs State of Punjab Satvir Singh vs State of Punjab Mukesh vs State of Nct Delhi Anurag Soni vs State of Chhattisgarh Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra Pramod Suryabhan vs State of Maharashtra Gurmeet Singh vs State of Punjab Mh Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra Basdev vs State of Pepsu Uday vs State of Karnataka Nanak Chand vs State of Punjab Rampal Singh vs State of Up Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh Sawal Das vs State of Bihar Nalini vs State of Tamil Nadu Badri Rai vs State of Bihar Ratanlal vs State of Punjab Kamesh Panjiyar vs State of Bihar Govindachamy vs State of Kerala Gauri Shankar Sharma vs State of Up Dalip Singh vs State of Up Mohd Ibrahim vs State of Bihar Kameshwar vs State of Bihar Prabhakar Tiwari vs State of Up Deepchand vs State of Up Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab Varkey Joseph vs State of Kerala Sher Singh vs State of Punjab Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar​ Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam Kapur Singh vs State of Pepsu​ Naeem Khan Guddu vs State Topan Das vs State of Bombay Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs State of Maharashtra Omprakash Sahni vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand Ravinder Singh vs State of Haryana Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab vs State of Maharashtra​ Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India Rajender Singh vs Santa Singh Cherubin Gregory vs State of Bihar Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy Navas vs State Of Kerala Reg vs Govinda
Industrial Dispute Act
Intellectual Property Rights
International Law
Labour Law
Law of Torts
Muslim Law
NDPS Act
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881
Prevention of Corruption Act
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
SC/ST Act
Specific Relief Act
Taxation Law
Transfer of Property Act
Travancore Christian Succession Act

Foss vs Harbottle case related to company law that established important principles like the ‘Proper Plaintiff Rule’ and the ‘Majority Principle Rule’. The case addressed the question of whether individual shareholders can sue for wrongs done to a company and highlighted the status of the company as a separate legal entity. The decision clarified that only the company or a derivative action can seek legal action for fraud or mismanagement. The case shaped the corporate governance and minority shareholder rights and also outlined the key exceptions like ultra vires acts and fraud on the minority. For an understanding of important judicial decisions explore  Landmark Judgements.

Case Overview

Case Title

Foss vs Harbottle

Date Of The Order

1843

Jurisdiction

England

Bench

Sir James Wigram VC, Sir Knight Bruce VC

Appellant

Richard Foss, Edward Starkie Turton

Respondent

Thomas Harbottle, Others

Provisions Involved

Majority Rule Principle, Corporate Law, Derivative Action

Foss vs Harbottle : Historical Context and Facts

In Foss v harbottle case summary, the Victoria Park Company was formed in 1835 to acquire and develop 180 acres of land near Manchester. It was later known as Victoria Park, Manchester after incorporation by an Act of Parliament. The purpose of the company was also the establishment of ornamental and park-like spaces, construction of houses with gardens and fields and selling or renting of these properties.

- www.khautorepair.com
📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants
Subjects PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors Download Link

Allegations of Fraud and Misappropriation

The Directors and other individuals associated with the company diverted from the intended purposes of the company. They got into fraudulent activities including the misappropriation and false mortgaging of company assets for their personal use.

Actions by Minority Shareholders

In Foss vs Harbottle case, Richard Foss and Edward Starkie Turton, who were the minority shareholders, took a legal action and contended that the directors and associates of the company were misusing its assets. The individuals accused included the five directors namely, Thomas Harbottle, Joseph Adshead, Henry Byrom, John Westhead and Richard Bealey along with others such as Joseph Denison, Thomas Bunting, Richard Lane, H. E. Lloyd, Rotton, T. Peet, J. Biggs and S. Brooks (assignees of Byrom, Adshead, and Westhead).

Legal Proceedings

In foss vs harbottle case law, the legal proceedings was instituted on the basis of the following three main grounds-

  • Fraudulent Practices: The shareholders said that the directors and associates are engaged in practices which are fraudulent.
  • Lack of Qualified Directors: The board of directors was accused of being unqualified to manage the company
  • Absence of Administrative Infrastructure: The shareholders showed the lack of administrative infrastructure which made it impossible for the company to function properly or address grievance effectively

Relief Sought

The minority shareholders sought the intervention of the Court to hold the wrongdoers accountable and requested the appointment of a responsible receiver to manage the assets of the company.

Crack Judicial Services Exam with India's Super Teachers

Get 18+ 12 Months SuperCoaching @ just

₹149999 ₹55999

Your Total Savings ₹94000
Explore SuperCoaching

Foss vs Harbottle : Issue addressed 

The main question which was addressed in the case of foss vs harbottle was whether the members of the company can file suit on behalf of the company or not and can the guilty parties be held accountable for their wrong deeds or not?

Foss vs Harbottle: Judgment and Impact

The Court in Foss vs Harbottle case ruled in favor of the Defendants and rejected the claims brought by the shareholders. The Court held that individual shareholders or outsiders could not take legal action for wrongs done to the corporation. The Court stated the reason that as the company is a distinct legal entity separate from its members outsiders cannot take legal actions. This principle is aligned with Section 21(1)(a) of the Companies Act which states that a company may sue and be sued in its own name and that members cannot initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the company.

The principle in the case of Foss vs Harbottle which the Court stated was the responsibility of the company to take legal action against those who misappropriated its property. In this case Wigram VC also highlighted that the minority shareholders must demonstrate that all internal mechanisms for redress have been exhausted. Moreover, if the alleged irregularities can be ratified by the majority of shareholders, the courts will refrain from intervening.

The principle in the case of Foss vs Harbottle established the following foundational rules -

Proper Plaintiff Rule

The company itself is the only proper party to sue directors or third parties for any harm or loss caused by fraudulent or negligent acts. This rule arises from the doctrine of the company as a separate legal entity and distinct from its members.

Majority Principle Rule

The Courts will not intervene if a wrong can be ratified by the majority of shareholders at a general meeting.

The Court also acknowledged few exceptions in the case of Foss vs Harbottle where minority shareholders could pursue legal action-

Ultra Vires Acts

Any member can bring legal action to challenge those acts if the company engages in activities beyond its powers.

Fraud on Minority

Any member can bring legal action to challenge those acts if the majority engages in fraudulent acts that harm the minority.

Oppression and Mismanagement

Shareholders may seek legal remedies under the Companies Act if there is oppression or mismanagement within the company.

Violation of Individual Membership Rights

Shareholders can enforce their individual rights such as the right to vote or stand for election against the company.

Derivative Action

Shareholders may bring a derivative action on behalf of the company to address wrongs committed against it.

Conclusion

The Court in Foss vs Harbottle held that only the company or a representative action can take legal steps if a company suffers losses due to negligence or fraud. It upheld the rule that a company is a separate legal entity so individual shareholders cannot sue on its behalf.
More Articles for Landmark Judgements

FAQs about Foss vs Harbottle (1843)

The case involved allegations of fraud and misappropriation of company assets by the directors and associates of the Victoria Park Company.

The plaintiffs alleged in the Foss vs Harbottle case that fraudulent practices by the directors and associates and absence of administrative infrastructure.

The court laid down two key principles i.e., ‘Proper Plaintiff Rule’ and ‘Majority Principle Rule’.

In the Foss vs Harbottle case, the Court held that the company is a separate legal entity and only the company itself could bring a claim for wrongs done to it.

The Court recognized the following exceptions which are as follows: Ultra Vires Acts, Fraud on Minority, Oppression and Mismanagement, Violation of Individual Membership Rights and Derivative Action.

Report An Error