Unconvinced, Justice Patel termed this stance doubtful and overbroad.
“Taken to its logical extreme, this (Invesco’s argument) means that a group of qualified shareholders can propose any sort of resolution, regardless of its legality, and force this to be considered by the general body at an EGM … If the resolutions proposed are not such as can even be countenanced in law, then how does the question of putting them to vote at an EGM even arise? I am leaving aside for now the very serious considerations of the costs and logistics of calling an EGM with such a wide shareholding base …
… If the inevitable consequence is going to be something effete — incapable of effective action — why compel the meeting at all? Or, more accurately, why not interdict something that is shown well in advance to end in an utterly useless and sterile result?”, the Court added in its order.
