The case of Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is a landmark decision in English contract law and company law. It is celebrated for elucidating the concept of implied terms in contracts, particularly through MacKinnon LJ's officious bystander test, and for establishing principles regarding the breach of contract by directors in the context of a company's constitution.
The case involved Mr Shirlaw, who served as the managing director of Southern Foundries Ltd. Following the takeover by Federated Foundries Ltd, changes were made to the company's constitution that empowered certain directors and the secretary to remove any director. Utilising this amended power, Mr Shirlaw was dismissed before the expiration of his ten-year contract, leading him to sue the company for breach of contract.
The High Court ruled in favour of Mr Shirlaw, awarding him £12,000 for breach of contract. The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal, where it was contended that an implied term existed within Mr Shirlaw's contract, which stipulated that the company would not alter its articles to facilitate his removal or exercise any newly created right to remove him. The Court of Appeal upheld this view, rejecting any case for reducing the awarded damages.
In his judgment, MacKinnon LJ introduced the officious bystander test as a means of identifying implied terms in a contract. This test suggests that if, during the contract's formation, an officious bystander were to propose a provision that both parties would dismiss with a perfunctory "Of course," such a provision would inherently form part of the agreement. MacKinnon LJ applied this test to the case at hand, arguing that both parties would have inherently agreed to not exercise or create any right to remove Mr Shirlaw from his directorship as it would undermine the contract's purpose.
The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision, emphasising that altering the company's articles to remove Mr Shirlaw constituted a breach of contract. This decision highlighted that damages were justifiably awarded for this breach, reinforcing the idea that the exercise of powers contained within a company's constitution must respect contractual commitments to its directors.
This case established the officious bystander test as a crucial tool for determining when a term should be implicitly included in a contract. The ruling highlighted the protections afforded to directors under their contracts, setting a precedent that a company's constitutional powers could not be used in bad faith to circumvent contractual obligations. The case exemplified the interplay between contract law and company law, particularly in the context of directors' contractual rights versus the powers enumerated in a company's constitution.
The principles established in this case have had a lasting impact on both contract law and company law, guiding how courts interpret contracts and the extent to which company constitutions can influence contractual relationships within the corporate structure.
Check out our exam-focused Contract Law and Company Law notes now.
Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.
