Australian Metropolitan Life Assurance Company Ltd v Ure [1923] HCA 29

33 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 199 seems to me that it amounted to a cancellation of the power of H.C. or A. attorney as between the parties (see Smale v. Burr (1)). Conse- Be aa) quently, the proviso to the power of sale in the power of attorney Baxer was no longer 'subsisting. and the action was therefore rightly aes dismissed.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellant, Hamilton & Nielson, Bundaberg, by Morris, Fletcher & Cross.

Solicitors for the respondent, Thornburn & Thornburn, Bunda- berg. by J. Nicol Robinson, Fox & Edwards.

dE Vie ; Fol, Dist (1) (1872) L.R. 8 C.P., 64. Oa\sman TC Newman FAT Un a a oe aclkeh (irda Aetie fieeea pr (12) 7 (1892) 7 ACSR 415 WAR '496 [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] THE AUSTRALIAN METROPOLITAN LIFE ) n ASSURANCE. COMPANY LID: . . jf "PPEEUANT; RESPONDENT, AND URE AND OTHERS : : : ; . RESPONDENTS. APPLICANTS, H. ©. or A. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF 1993. QUEENSLAND. ae BRISBANE,

Company —Shares—Transfer—Refusal to register transfer—Discretion of directors— June 12, 13. Articles of association—Companies Act 1863 (Q.) (27 Vict. No. 4), secs. 21, 34. Sypyey,

Aug. 2.

One of the articles of assoviation of a company provided that the directors might refuse to register any transfer whatever of any shares without assigning Knox C.J.,

: Is: d any reason therefor. A member of the company purchased certain additional ites. 4n@

AUSTRALIAN Merro- POLITAN Lire ASSURANCE Co, Lrp. v Ure.

HIGH COURT [1923,

shares, and duly forwarded to the company transfers to her nominees of those shares with the request that the names of the transferees be entered in the register of members. Registration was refused by the directors, and no reason for the refusal was given. The members of the company were divided into two sections. One section was supported by all the directors except one. Ii the transfers had been registered the other section, which was supported by the purchaser, would have obtained a controlling voting power, and by the exercise of that power would probably have been able to secure the election as director of the purchaser's husband, who had once been a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland but had been struck off the roll. After the refusal to register, the directors gave notice of a proposed resolntion authorizing the issue of new shares of which a number were to be disposed of to such persons as the directors might decide. If that resolution were passed and shares issued to supporters of the first section, that section would probably have retained a majority of voting power notwithstanding that the transfers in question were subsequently registered.