The Doctrine of Indoor Management, also known as the "Turquand Rule," is a foundational principle in company law that protects third parties (outsiders) who enter into contracts with a company.
It serves as a necessary check on the Doctrine of Constructive Notice, which assumes that outsiders have read a company’s public documents (Memorandum and Articles of Association).
1. Definition and Origin
The doctrine states that while outsiders are bound to know the "external" requirements of a company (its public filings), they are not bound to investigate whether the company’s "internal" proceedings and regulations have been properly followed. They are entitled to assume that the "indoor" work is done regularly.
Leading Case: Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856)
Facts: The directors of a company borrowed money from the bank and issued a bond. The company's Articles stated that the directors could borrow such sums as authorized by a resolution passed at a general meeting. No such resolution was actually passed.
Company's Defense: The company argued it wasn't liable because the internal requirement (the resolution) was missing.
Ruling: The Court held the company liable. It ruled that the bank had read the Articles and saw that the directors had the power to borrow. The bank was not required to check whether the internal meeting had actually taken place.
2. Exceptions to the Doctrine
The protection of indoor management is not absolute. An outsider cannot claim protection in the following circumstances:
A. Knowledge of Irregularity
If the person dealing with the company has actual notice or is aware that the internal rules were not followed, they cannot use this doctrine as a shield.
Case: Howard v. Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co.
Details: The company’s directors could only borrow up to £1,000 without shareholder approval. They borrowed £3,500 from themselves (as lenders). Since they were directors, they clearly knew the internal limit was exceeded. The court held that the company was only liable for £1,000.
B. Suspicion of Irregularity (Negligence)
If the circumstances surrounding a transaction are so unusual or suspicious that a reasonable person would have made further inquiries, the doctrine does not apply.
Case: Underwood v. Bank of Liverpool
Details: A director of a company paid a check made out to the company into his personal bank account. The bank accepted it without asking questions. The court held the bank could not rely on the Turquand Rule because the transaction was suspicious on its face.
C. Forgery
The doctrine applies only to "irregular" acts, not to "illegal" or "void" acts like forgery. A company cannot be held liable for a document where a signature has been forged.
Case: Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated
Details: A company secretary forged the signatures of two directors on a share certificate and issued it to Ruben. The court held that the certificate was a nullity and the company was not bound by a forged document.
D. Acts Outside Apparent Authority
If an officer of the company performs an act that is completely outside the usual scope of their authority, the outsider cannot assume the company authorized it.
Case: Anand Behari Lal v. Dinshaw & Co.
Details: An accountant of a company attempted to transfer the company's property to an outsider. The court held that transferring property is not within the "apparent authority" of an accountant, and the outsider should have verified the authorization.
E. No Knowledge of Articles
A person who has never read the company’s Articles of Association cannot claim they "relied" on the Doctrine of Indoor Management. You cannot claim protection from an internal irregularity if you weren't even aware of the external powers granted by the company's documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment