Fourth, the exception to the foss V Harbottle is whether the members’ personal right are infringed. According to the Aishah (2003), the personal right exception is not exception at all, but actually it was an outside the rule completely. Boyle (2009) state that the rule in Foss and Harbottle is that in the case of a wrong done to the company it is the company may sue by way of derivative action where the wrong has complained of is one that cannot be ratified or made binding on the company or validly effected by an ordinary resolution of the members. Meaning is, any member in a company may make a suing by the derivative action but the wrong complained cannot be ratified or else cannot make a binding that affected to any member. As we can see, the rule is more concerned with the wrongs done to the corporation, and provide that corporation is the proper plaintiff. As compared in case Waddington, Control of a majority of the voting shares was believed to be necessary to bring a derivative action. In that case, a minority shareholder in a listed company brought an…show more content… The circumstances of modern commercial life are very different to those which existed when Foss v. Harbottle was decided. The complexities and sophistication of modern shareholding make it often very difficult to bring derivative claims within the established exceptions. Sukhvinder (2014) stated that some courts have been prepared to allow a minority shareholder to bring a derivative action. When the court recognised that the claims of justice might in some cases override any difficulties arising out of technical rules respecting the mode in which corporations are required to sue. However Bidin (2006) have state to be desirable to allow a minority shareholder to bring a derivative claim where the justice of the case clearly demands that such a claim be brought, irrespective of whether the claim false within the confines of established
