Henry v Great Northern Rly Co (1857) 1 De G & J 606

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Preference Shares

The foremost eminent inclination offers is that they will regularly have a privilege to a settled rate of profit, ordinarily communicated as a rate of the ostensible esteem of the offers themselves. This settled rate profit will be paid in need of the profits payable to the conventional shareholders. The inclination shareholder will not have a privilege to a dividend, even though (unless there is a particular understanding to the contrary) and will as it got a profit in a specific year if the chiefs choose to pronounce one. In that regard, they are more just like the conventional shareholder than the debenture holder, who will be entitled to a settled rate of interest each year. The distributable benefit in a destitute year can be depleted totally in fulfilling the claims of the inclination shareholders without the standard shareholders getting anything. On the off chance that the company has performed so severely in a budgetary year that there’s no distributable benefit or not sufficient to fulfil the entire sum to which the inclination shareholder is entitled, the inclination shareholder may still be in distant better. An improved a stronger position than the conventional shareholder since the inclination share would be aggregate, in which case, back payments of inclination profit will be carried forward and paid out of the distributable benefits made inconsequent a long time which is, of course, sometime recently the standard shareholder will get anything. There is an assumption that extraordinary profits are to be aggregated unless the terms of the issuing state otherwise.

On the critical issue of whether the profits on the inclination offers were aggregate, the Judge said that where this is often not specified:

The genuine nature of the rights conferred by an inclination share may be a matter of translation of the instrument that made the shares. Be that as it may, several recognised canons of development help within the elucidation of such rebelliousness. Created within the late nineteenth century in reaction to the remiss drafting of rebellious making inclination offers, they can be presently seen as so well set up as not to be in any doubt.


One of the canons of development relates to the nature of profit privilege. Where (as in this case) the terms on which inclination offers are issued are noiseless as to whether the offers are aggregate or non-cumulative as to profit they are assumed to be aggregate, even though that assumption can be refuted by dialect appearing that the profit is to be paid as it were from the benefits of the same year.

The complexity around profits proceeds as of now, section 254T disallows a company from paying a profit unless the company has positive net resources quickly. Sometimes recently, the profit is announced adequate to cover the profit. The instalment is reasonable and sensible to the company’s shareholders as an entire, and the instalment does not substantially prefer the company’s capacity to pay its banks. The introduction draft of the Charge discharged in April 2014 proposed supplanting the existing three appendage test in section 254T with an immaculate dissolvability test. In a disillusioning advancement, the Charge does not contain any change to section 254T. Companies will have to proceed to deal with the complexity related to section 254T. That’s, the three appendage tests in section 254T must be complied with when paying a profit. In expansion, the company must still respect the accessibility of benefits, out of which it’ll pay dividends.

Usually, since important question remains as to whether the current section 254T licenses a lessening of capital without fulfilling the necessities of Portion 2J of the Enterprises Act, especially the prerequisite to get shareholder endorsement, an advance matter to be considered is the position adopted by the Commissioner of Tax collection; that’s, profits paid other than from benefit cannot be franked. Later, the legal comment recommended that the benefits test be an essential common law guideline. Within the NSW Incomparable Court, Barrett JA commented that (Wambo Coal Pty Ltd v Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd [2014] NSWCA 326 at [57]):

It may be that there remains a standard law guideline that profits may as it was to be paid out of benefits, given the fundamental nature of a profit as a “share of benefits”

Henry v The Great Northern Railway Co (1857) 1 DeG & J 606; 44 ER 858 at 873 per Knight Bruce LJ: “The instalment of profits: Lawful perplexity, complexities and the requirements for comprehensive change in Australia” (2014) 32 Company and Securities Law Diary. A contention pushed by Alevras and du Plessis within the article alluded to over is that until Parliament explicitly annuls the benefits test, it proceeds to be a portion of the Australian general common law. Meanwhile, companies ought to respect the company law guideline that profits must be paid from benefits. In deciding the benefits of a holding company accessible for distribution as a profit, it is the benefit unveiled within the company’s possessed accounts (instead of any bunch of benefits unveiled in its solidified accounts) that have to be considered. The necessities for the instalment of a profit apply to each company independently, not on a solidified premise. Compensation report changes the taking after changes to the substance requirement for remuneration reports of listed companies are to be made by the Bill:

• If alternatives already allowed to a part of the company’s critical administration faculty slip by amid the year, the compensation report must state the number of those choices and the year they were at first allowed. It’ll now not be essential to reveal the “esteem” of alternatives passed during the year.

• Section 300A (1) (e) (VI) – requiring revelation of the rate esteem of the person’s compensation that comprises alternatives – will be evacuated.

Hey there!

come here often?

Login To Come In