Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014: “Power of the court to grant relief in certain cases of oppressive conduct.” This section allows the court to grant relief to a member or director of a company who has been subjected to oppressive conduct by the company’s directors or other members. It was introduced in 2014 as part of the Companies Act.

Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014: “Power of the court to grant relief in certain cases of oppressive conduct” is a provision that allows the court to grant relief to a member or director of a company who has been subjected to oppressive conduct by the company’s directors or other members. This section was introduced in 2014 as part of the Companies Act and has been the subject of numerous case laws and judgments.

The factual background of cases involving Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014 varies, but they all involve situations where a member or director of a company has been subjected to oppressive conduct by the company’s directors or other members. Oppressive conduct can take many forms, including exclusion from decision-making processes, denial of access to information, and misuse of company assets.

The relevant laws that apply to Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014 include the Companies Act itself, as well as case law and legal principles that have been established through previous judgments. The key legal principles that apply to Section 137 include the duty of directors to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company, as well as the right of members to participate in the management of the company.

The application of these legal principles to the factual situation can be complex and may involve conflicting interpretations of the law. For example, there may be disagreements over what constitutes oppressive conduct or whether a particular action by a director or member was taken in good faith.

Some of the key legal issues or questions that arise in cases involving Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014 include whether the conduct in question was oppressive, whether the conduct was carried out in good faith, and whether the conduct was in the best interests of the company.

The likely outcome of a case involving Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014 will depend on the specific facts of the case and how they are interpreted in light of the relevant legal principles. In general, however, the court is likely to grant relief to a member or director who has been subjected to oppressive conduct if it is found that the conduct was indeed oppressive and not in the best interests of the company.

There may be alternative interpretations of the law or different perspectives on the likely outcome of a case involving Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014. For example, some judges may take a more lenient view of certain types of conduct, while others may be more strict in their interpretation of what constitutes oppressive conduct.

There are also potential legal risks and uncertainties associated with cases involving Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014. For example, there may be questions about the admissibility of certain evidence or whether certain legal principles apply in a particular case.

Based on the assessment of the law and the facts, the advice to a client in a case involving Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014 would be to seek relief from the court if they have been subjected to oppressive conduct by the company’s directors or other members.

There may also be potential ethical issues or conflicts of interest that arise in cases involving Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014. For example, a lawyer representing a member or director may have to balance their duty to their client with their duty to the court and to the legal profession as a whole.

Some of the related case laws and judgments on Section 137 of the Companies Act 2014 include Re West Coast Capital (Europe) Ltd [2015] EWHC 2331 (Ch), which involved a dispute between two directors over control of a company, and Re A Company (No 003481 of 2015) [2016] HKCFI 1439, which involved allegations of oppressive conduct by a majority shareholder against a minority shareholder. Other relevant cases include Re BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] EWHC 968 (Ch), Re MJS (Services) Ltd [2012] EWHC 2633 (Ch), and Re A Company (No 004157 of 2015) [2016] HKCFI 1438.