• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Removal of Company Directors by Ordinary Resolution

Directors must act in accordance with their statutory and fiduciary duties, including the duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders. Where shareholders feel this is not the case and the relevant director(s) refuse to leave voluntarily, shareholders may wish to consider removing them.

The position can be complicated if the director in question is also a shareholder or employee of the company, as this may give rise to arguments of unfair prejudice or unfair dismissal.  Extra care should be taken in these circumstances to mitigate either the risk of claims against the company or separate shareholder claims.

As ever, the starting point is the company’s constitutional documents, including any investment or shareholder agreements. These should be reviewed carefully, and may contain a number of options for removal of a director, for example by way of shareholders giving written notice to the company.

If there are no simpler options available, the Companies Act 2006 (the Act) provides a mechanism for shareholders to remove a director who refuses to step aside by passing an ordinary resolution. Although it is possible for a company’s articles to add additional provisions or conditions, the right itself cannot be overridden by the articles or any other agreement, though as noted below it can effectively be negated by some shareholders having been granted weighted voting rights or rights to re-appoint directors.

Initial Steps

Section 168(1) of the Act states that the shareholders can remove a director by passing an ordinary resolution at a meeting of the company. This process is complicated somewhat by the notice requirements set out in statute.

The relevant shareholders must serve special notice on the company of any resolution to remove a director under the provisions of the Act.  This must be given to the company at least 28 clear days before the meeting at which the resolution will be moved. An obstructive director may hope to hold on to their office by, having received the 28 day notice of the meeting, calling a meeting within that 28 day period. However, the Act provides that, in such a scenario, the special notice to the company of the resolution to remove the director is effective even if the full 28 day period has not elapsed.

The Company’s Obligations

Once the company receives the shareholders’ notice, it must then issue notice of the meeting within 21 days of the date of deemed receipt. Further, under section 312 of the Act, when a company calls the meeting, it must, so far as is possible, also give the shareholders notice of the resolution to remove the director at the same time and in the same manner as it gives notice of the meeting itself. If this is not practicable, members must be given at least 14 clear days’ notice of the resolution before the meeting.

Although the courts have not ruled specifically on the point, the conservative view is that this 14 day notice period must always be satisfied, meaning the company cannot hold the meeting using the short notice procedure.

Upon receiving the shareholders’ initial notice, the Act provides that company must also, without delay, send a copy of that notice to the relevant director. The director is entitled to make his or her case against their removal, both at the meeting at which the resolution is ultimately heard, and in the form of written representations to be circulated by the company before the meeting.

If the director wishes representations to be circulated, they must be provided to the company in writing and not be of an unreasonable length. The company must inform all shareholders notified of the meeting that these representations have been received and, where it is possible to do so before the meeting is held, also send the shareholders a copy of the representations. If the company fails to complete this process or there is insufficient time for the representations to be circulated, the representations should instead be read out at the shareholder meeting. This is in addition to the relevant director’s right to speak at that meeting on the subject.

The Meeting

At the meeting, for the resolution to pass, it must be supported by more than 50% of the shareholders who are eligible to vote. If all of the above notice periods are extended to their limit, the meeting may not be held until over two months after the shareholders serve their initial notice. This means that if multiple subsidiaries are involved, or if time is of the essence, it should be considered whether more time and cost effective alternative methods are available.

Potential Limitations of the Statutory Procedure

As well as the need to comply with the intricacies of the procedure itself, it is possible that weighted voting or re-appointment rights in the company’s constitution effectively negate the ordinary resolution option. For example, where a director is appointed by a particular shareholder, that shareholder could be granted additional voting rights on a resolution to remove the director so that, in practice, the resolution cannot be passed. Alternatively, that shareholder may be given the right to immediately re-appoint him or her.  In addition, parties may agree, contractually, in a Shareholders’ Agreement not to exercise their statutory powers of removal. 

Conclusion

It is important to seek legal advice to ensure that any removal of a director is carried out lawfully and in a way which mitigates the risk of a claim against the company. The procedure to remove a director deals only with his or her position as such. Whilst a director may be removed from the office of director in compliance with the company’s constitutional documents or the Act, the director in question may, for example, still have rights and a potential claim against the company in his or her capacity as an employee (if applicable).  The question of any shareholding held by the director should also be addressed, and the circumstances may give the removed director a right to bring an unfair prejudice claim against the company.


This article was written by Stephen Burns. For more information please contact Stephen on +44 (0) 1483 252 618 stephen.burns@crsblaw.com.

Our thinking

  • Business over Breakfast: Arbitration is cheaper – Myth or Reality?

    Thomas R. Snider

    Events

  • Takeover Panel consults on narrowing the scope of the Takeover Code

    Jodie Dennis

    Insights

  • Nick Hurley and Annie Green write for Employee Benefits on the impact of dropping the real living wage pledge

    Nick Hurley

    In the Press

  • The UK’s March 2024 budget: Offshore trusts - have reports of their demise been greatly exaggerated?

    Sophie Dworetzsky

    Insights

  • Playing with FYR: planning opportunities offered by the UK’s proposed four-year regime for newcomers to the UK

    Catrin Harrison

    Insights

  • James Broadhurst writes for the Financial Times’ Your Questions column on inheriting company shares

    James Broadhurst

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys bolsters corporate and commercial offering with the appointment of Shirley Fu in Hong Kong

    Simon Green

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises Give Back Beauty Group in the acquisition of INCC Parfums

    Dimitri A. Sonier

    News

  • City AM quotes Charlotte Duly on the importance of business branding

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Regime change: The beginning of the end of the remittance basis

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Essential Intelligence – UAE Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery

    Sara Sheffield

    Insights

  • ‘One plus one makes two': Court of Protection finds conflict of interest within law firm structure

    Katie Foulds

    Insights

  • Arbitration: Getting value for your money

    Daniel McDonagh

    Insights

  • eprivateclient quotes Sally Ashford on considerations around power of attorney

    Sally Ashford

    In the Press

  • Michael Powner and Sophie Rothwell write for Law360 on anti-bias protection

    Michael Powner

    In the Press

  • Has a new route to recovery opened up for victims of banking payment frauds?

    Katie Bewick

    Insights

  • Sex discrimination at work

    Michael Powner

    Insights

  • Why Switzerland is poised to become a prime jurisdiction for families to establish their private trust companies

    Dharshi Wijetunga

    Insights

  • New Tools for Fraud and Asset Tracing between Hong Kong and China?

    Stephen Chan

    Insights

  • Thomas Snider, Reem Faqihi and Dalal Alhouti discuss the impact of technology on the arbitration landscape for Legal Community MENA

    Thomas R. Snider

    In the Press

  • Précisions sur le prix d’acquisition des titres souscrits en exercice de BSPCE : nouvelles perspectives pour les starts-ups en France?

    Raphaël Bagdassarian

    Quick Reads

  • Fashion and the Green Claims Code brought into focus by open letter from the CMA.

    Ilona Bateson

    Quick Reads

  • Will new powers at Companies House stop or slow down fraudsters?

    Peter Carlyon

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys hosts international arbitration event in Dubai

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Dawn raids... a new dawn?

    Rhys Novak

    Quick Reads

  • Abu Dhabi’s New Arbitral Centre Unveils its Rules

    Dalal Alhouti

    Quick Reads

  • Les entreprises en difficulté ou en croissance peuvent-elle se passer des equity lines? Can distressed or growth companies do without hybrid bonds?

    Dimitri-André Sonier

    Quick Reads

  • Danish tax authority wins "cum-ex" tax fraud case at the Supreme Court

    Hugh Gunson

    Quick Reads

  • Dubai Court of Cassation Extends Arbitration Agreement Across Subsequent Contracts

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Nigeria's challenge to US$11 billion award succeeds in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales

    John Olatunji

    Quick Reads

  • Caring across borders: The UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme and the global nature of parental responsibility

    James Elliott-Hughes

    Quick Reads

  • Venture capital funds agree 'investment compact' to increase investment in UK high-growth companies

    Mike Barrington

    Quick Reads

  • An important reminder for employers on World Menopause Day

    Isobel Goodman

    Quick Reads

  • Return to the full office week?

    Quick Reads

  • UAE Polishes Federal Arbitration Law

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Is the opening up of Nexity's services division capital a consequence of the difficulties facing the French property sector?

    Dimitri-André Sonier

    Quick Reads

  • What next for HS2?

    Richard Flenley

    Quick Reads

  • Mediation as a pillar of dispute resolution: it’s happening, embrace it

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • A warning to all businesses: significant fine underscores the importance of maintaining workplace Health & Safety

    Rory Partridge

    Quick Reads

  • New Governance Guidelines for family-owned businesses in the UAE

    William Reichert

    Quick Reads

Back to top