為了更好方便大家接觸英語和法律英語，超律志通過推薦境外案例帶大家學習。《英文案例選讀》系列撰稿人Alicia以公司法相關境外案例為學習材料著手，該系列具體包括三個部分：【Facts Material】、【Glossary】、【holding of the Judges】。
如果喜歡，記得文末點擊"在看」支持超律志，並且不要錯過學習，一定要標星本公眾號哦。
公眾號後臺回復關鍵詞"公司偏見 」，可獲取本案例全文學習。
一、Facts Material
The petitioners, James Weller and Rosemary Sheppey, were respectively the registered holders of 2,450 and 450 shares in a family company which had been incorporated in 1947 and which had an issued share capital of 18,000 shares. Sam Weller (S), the sole director of the company, and the uncle of the petitioners, held 1,800 shares and his two sons, Anthony (A) and Christopher(C ) who were employees of the company, each held 1,350 shares. Following the deaths of three of the members of the family, the petitioners became interested in further shares making a total of 7,700 of the company's 18,000 issued shares, 42.5% of the issued share capital. The company's certified accounts for the calendar year 1985 showed net assets of nearly £500,000 including £216,969 cash and undistributed revenue profits of £464,623. The company's net profits for 1985 were £36,330 on which a dividend of 14p per share was paid. The dividend was covered 14 times and the same dividend had been paid for at least 37 years.
請願人James Weller (J)和Rosemary Sheppey (R)分別是一家於1947年成立並擁有18,000股已發行股本的家族公司的2 450股及450股的登記持有人。Sam Weller (S)是該公司唯一董事兼請願人的叔叔，持有1,800股股份；而他的兩個兒子Anthony (A)和Christopher(C)是該公司的僱員，每人各持有1,350股。在該家族三名成員相繼去世後，J和R對去世成員所擁有的7,700股（佔已發行股本的42.5%）產生了興趣。1985年，該公司的認證帳戶顯示淨資產近50萬英鎊，包括216,969英鎊現金和未分配收入利潤464,623英鎊。該公司1985年的淨利潤為36,330英鎊，股息為每股14便士。股息先後支付了14次，同樣的股息支付了至少37年。
On 21 January 1987 the petition was presented under s 459 of the Companies Act 1985. The petitioners alleged that their interests as members of the company had been unfairly prejudiced by: (a) the payment on the insistence of S of the same derisory dividend for many years; (b) the purchase at the expense of the company of a flat as a holiday home for A and C; (c) a proposed capital expenditure by the company of £130,000 without any evidence that would prove profitable; (d) the refusal of S to register transfers of the shares to which the petitioners were entitled in equity and (e) the refusal of S to disclose the emoluments payable to himself or to A and C. The company, S, A and C applied to have struck out those parts of the petition alleging that the company's dividend policy and its proposed capital expenditure constituted unfairly prejudicial conduct on the grounds that they affected all the members equally and therefore were not unfairly prejudicial to some part of the members.
1987年1月21日，請願人根據1985年《公司法》第459條提出了請願書，主張他們作為公司成員的利益被不公平地損害了：（a）多年以來，S堅持支付相同的股息;（b）用公司的錢款購買的公寓成為了A和C的度假屋；（c）該公司的擬議資本支出為130,000英鎊，卻沒有任何證據可以證明該支出是可盈利的；（d）S拒絕登記請願人所擁有權益的股份的轉讓；（e）S拒絕披露應支付給其本人或A和C的酬金。該公司，S，A和C請求剔除請願書的部分內容，理由是該公司的股利政策及其擬議的資本支出對所有成員均具有平等影響，因此不構成對部分成員的不公平偏見。
二、Glossary
三、holding of the Judges
The judges held that the word 'interests' in section 459(1) of the Companies Act 1985 was wider than that of 'rights' and its use suggested that Parliament recognised that members of a company could have different interests even though they shared the same rights. Coupled with this, the use of the adverb 'unfairly' introduced the wide concept of fairness in relation to the prejudice of the interests of a member. Accordingly, even if the rights of all the members were affected equally by the allegedly unfairly prejudicial conduct, the interests of some part of the members may be affected in a way that was unfairly prejudicial to them. The test of whether or not conduct was unfairly prejudicial was an objective one and it was not necessary to show that those responsible for the unfairly prejudicial conduct were acting in bad faith or in the conscious knowledge that what they were doing was unfair: the test was whether the reasonable bystander observing the consequences of the conduct in question would consider that it was unfairly prejudicial. On this reasoning section 459 was not concerned with the consequences of the allegedly unfairly prejudicial conduct on the interests of those responsible for it but rather with its effect on the interests of those who complain of it. On the facts, the interests of the petitioners might have been unfairly prejudiced by low dividend payments and by the proposed capital expenditure and therefore the application to strike out the petition would be dismissed.
法官認為，《1985年公司法》第459（1）條中的「利益」一詞比「權利」一詞更寬泛，其用法表明議會認識到，即使公司成員具有相同的權利，他們也可能具有不同的利益。與此相伴的是，副詞「不公平地」的使用引入了廣泛的公平概念，與成員利益的偏見有關。因此，即使所有成員的權利受到所謂的不公正偏見行為的同等影響，部分成員的某些利益也可能受到不公正偏見的不同影響。
檢驗行為是否含有不公平的偏見是一項客觀的測試，因而沒有必要證明那些對不公平的偏見行為負有責任的人（行為人）是出於惡意或有意識地知道自己在做的事情是不公平的，而應該是以旁觀者角度合理觀察該行為的後果是否構成不正當偏見。根據這種推理，第459節所指控的不公正的偏見行為與行為人利益無關，而與抱怨者利益有關。事實上，低股息率和擬議的資本支出可能不公平地損害了請願人的利益，因此，法院駁回剔除請願的申請。
Re Sam Weller & Sons Ltd一案確立了如下原則：
interest不等同於right。即使所有成員的權利受到不公正偏見行為的同等影響，部分成員的某些利益也可能受到不公正偏見的不同影響。此時，我們應以旁觀者角度合理觀察該行為的後果是否構成不正當偏見，而不是以不公平的偏見行為的行為人的主觀意識為準。
For more: original judgement; follow our subscription and get it
公眾號後臺回復關鍵詞「 公司偏見」，可獲取本案例全文學習。
更多專欄更新：
英文案例選讀：公司法人人格獨立
英文案例選讀：勞動者的定義
英文案例選讀：公司章程中仲裁條款的效力
英文案例選讀：股東會與董事的職權劃分
英文案例選讀：公司議案的善意通過
英文案例選讀：董事是否「實際」有權代理
英文案例選讀：董事信義義務之正當目的
點擊右下角「在看」，分享給更多小夥伴
您的支持， 是超律志持續更新的動力