Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973]

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 is a significant UK company law case that deals with the rights of minority shareholders in a closely held company. The case established the concept of a quasi-partnership and clarified the circumstances under which a minority shareholder could seek a winding-up order of the company on the grounds that it is just and equitable to do so.

The case involved Ebrahimi and Nazar, who were originally business partners involved in buying and selling expensive rugs. They later decided to incorporate their business and became the sole shareholders of the company. A few years later, when Nazar's son came of age, he was appointed to the board of directors and Ebrahimi and Nazar both transferred shares to him. However, their relationship soured over time, and a dispute arose between them. After a falling out between the directors, Nazar and son called a company meeting and passed an ordinary resolution to remove Ebrahimi as a director. Ebrahimi applied to the court for a remedy to have the company wound up.

The House of Lords recognised that while a company is a separate legal entity, there are situations where it can be treated as a quasi-partnership. In this case, the company's operations closely resembled those of a partnership, and the personal relationships and mutual confidence of the parties played a significant role.

Ebrahimi had a legitimate expectation that his management role in the company would continue and that the articles of association would not be used against him to force him out. The court considered it inequitable for Nazar and his son to use their legal rights to oust Ebrahimi.

The House of Lords held that it was just and equitable to wind up the company in this case. This decision was based on the unique circumstances, including the personal relationship between the parties, mutual expectations, and the fact that the company's structure and operations resembled a partnership.

The case expanded the application of the just and equitable provision under company law. It emphasised that the provision could be used to subject the exercise of legal rights to equitable considerations, particularly when the company's structure involves personal relationships, mutual confidence, and restrictions on share transfers:

1. an association formed or continued on the basis of a personal relationship, involving mutual confidence – this element will often be found where a pre-existing partnership has been converted into a limited company;
2. an agreement, or understanding, that all, or some (for there may be ‘sleeping’ members), of the shareholders shall participate in the conduct of the business;
3. restriction upon the transfer of the members’ interest in the company – so that if confidence is lost, or one member is removed from management, he cannot take out his stake and go elsewhere.

The Court suggested that cases of quasi-partnership typically may include one, or probably more, of these elements. The Court also recognised that a company, especially a closely held or family-owned company, is more than just a legal entity. It acknowledged that individuals within the company have rights, expectations, and obligations among themselves, and these personal relationships should be taken into account when considering the winding up of a company.

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd is an important case that highlights the court's willingness to consider equitable principles and individual rights when deciding whether to order the winding up of a company, particularly in the context of closely held companies with quasi-partnership characteristics.