Company Law Reform Bill

The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill requires that the notice may be sent by agreed electronic means,"““if the recipient has agreed to receive it by electronic means””." The question of fact is: has he agreed to receive it? He might have agreed to receive it by saying, ““On this occasion only, send it by electronic means””; he may have agreed to receive it by electronic means because he has given a standing instruction that he can do so. Either would satisfy the requirements of the clause, so there is no need to spell out that it could be a specific or a general notice, because it plainly could. There is a disadvantage to the amendment, because it appears—we would have to see what the courts made of it—to restrict the sort of notice that a director could give to either a specific or a general one. Actually, directors might say, ““Send me electronic notices whenever I am overseas””, or, ““Send me electronic notices, but only during the month of March””. It might be said that a limited general notice is not included in the words that the noble Lord would write into the Bill; the notice would have to be either specific or general. So there are difficulties of that sort, but my principal point, to reassure the noble Lord and those who have raised this point, is that it seems to me incontrovertible that the only question that will arise is: has the recipient agreed to receive it by electronic means? He may have done specifically and alone to that individual notice or by way of a general agreement. Either would constitute agreement.