Informal Unanimous Consent as a Decision-Making Method in the English Corporate Law
( Pp. 110-117)

Abstract: The purpose of the research. Everyday, millions of companies face the necessity of making corporate decisions being vital to their future. It is often complicated for the companies to comply with legal requirements, especially, those related to meetings of shareholders. However, timeliness, effectiveness, and aligned position of the governing bodies form the functioning basis of the decision-making system. The article considers one of the possible ways to make decisions in English companies, which was established by the common law enabling the company shareholders to approve corporate actions informally without holding the general meeting subject to unanimous consent. Results. As a result of the study the author concludes that informal unanimous consent as a decision-making method provides a greater procedural flexibility and is employed mainly in situations where the company (due to various circumstances) does not have the ability to perform all the formalities inherent in the decision-making process. In addition, the practice shows that informal unanimous consent accelerates the decision-making process (due to shorter timelines set by the law or corporate articles of association), as well as contributes to the effective business organization and the immediate adoption of important decisions. At the same time, it should be noted that there are certain limitations on the employment of informal unanimous consent and failure to comply with them entails the risk of invalidation of the decision made by the governing body.

Morozova A.E., (2023), INFORMAL UNANIMOUS CONSENT AS A DECISION-MAKING METHOD IN THE ENGLISH CORPORATE LAW. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 3 => 110-117.

Kozhokar’, I. P. Consequences of False Transactions. I. P. Kozhokar’ // Rossiiskoe pravosudie. – 2021. – № 9. – S. 35-40. – DOI 10.37399/issn2072-909X.2021.9.35-40. – EDN YLOYHG.
Panchenko, P. V. The Correlation of the Principle of Cooperation of the Parties’ Commitment to the Principles of the Obligation Law / P. V. Panchenko, E. E. Frolova // Vestnik Akademii prava i upravleniia. –2018. – № 2(51). – S. 122-129. – EDN XSLZXV.
Auden McKenzie (Pharma Division) Ltd v Patel [2019] EWCA Civ 2291.
Bowthorpe Holdings Ltd. v. Hills, [2002] EWHC 2331 (Ch).
BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and Others [2022] UKSC 25.
Chandrate, K.R. Compendium of Key Issues under Corporate Law (In 5 Volumes). Bloomsbury Professional India. 2nd Edition, 2021.
Ciban Management Corporation v Citco (BVI) Ltd [2020] UKPC 31.
Companies Act 2006 // UK Parliament website: official site. URL: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ (date of access: 01.02.2022).
Conmy S. What is a company secretary? Lexicon. Electronic journal. URL: https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/lexicon/what-is-a-company-secretary/ (date of access: 02.02.2023).
Duomatic Ltd, Re [1969] 2 Ch. 365.
Freeagent. Electronic journal, 2022. URL: https://www.freeagent.com/glossary/close-company/ (date of access: 02.02.2023).
Herrman v Simon (1990) 4 ACSR 81.
Inshakova, A. Classification criteria: Defining the specific features of corporate conflicts / A. Inshakova, V. Dolinskaya, E. Frolova // «Conflict-Free» Socio-Economic Systems: Perspectives and Contradictions. – Bingley, West Yorkshire : Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2019. – P. 89-99. – DOI 10.1108/978-1-78769-993-920191011. – EDN GASZCT.
Kosmin, L., Roberts, C. Company Meetings and Resolutions: Law, Practice, and Procedure // Oxford University Press, 2020, 656 рр.
Matthews, T. Private companies limited by shares // Published by a LexisNexis Corporate expert. – URL: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/private-companies-limited-by-shares (date of access: 01.12.2022).
Micheler E. Company Law A real entity theory // Oxford University Press, 2021. 320 pp.
Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch. 258.
Ottley M. Briefcase on Company Law (2nd Edition) // London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2002. 158 pp.
Parker and Cooper Ltd. v. Reading [1926] 1 Ch. 975.
Phosphate of Lime Company v. Green [1871] L.R. 7 C.P. 43.
Re BW Estates Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 1201.
Re Express Engineering Works Ltd [1920] 1 Ch 466 (CA).
Re Stakefield (Midlands) Ltd, Secretary of State for Business Innovation and. Skills v Doffman [2010] EWHC 2518 (Ch); [2011] 1 BCLC 596.
Re Torvale Group ltd. [2000].
Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22.
Schofield v Schofield & Ors | [2011] EWCA Civ 154.
Sealy, L., ‎Worthington, S. Sealy & Worthington’s Text, Cases, and Materials in Company Law // Oxford University Press, 2013.
Stubbins Marketing Ltd v Stubbins Food Partnerships Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1266 (Ch).
Toone & Anor v Robbins & Anor | [2018] EWHC 569 (Ch).
UK business; activity, size and location: 2022. UK businesses broken down by legal status, industry, region, employment and turnover size bands // Office of National Statistic: official site. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-business-activity-size-and-location-2022 (date of access: 01.03.2023).
Wright v Atlas Wright (Europe) Ltd [1999] B.C.C. 163.
Wrong Price Tag’ at a Supermarket in the Focus of General Principles of Law / S. V. Korolev, Yu. L. Shulzhenko, E. P. Rusakova [et al.] // Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. – 2018. – Vol. 9, No. 3. – P. 1004-1010. – DOI 10.14505/jarle.v9.3(33).26. – EDN YPGELB.

duomatic principle, informal unanimous consent, corporate governance, shareholders..