Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting that information on the record. It is helpful for us in our further and final deliberations on this technical area. He was right that the circumstances raised in the amendment were intended to fit into the areas of where ““leave must be refused”” as opposed to issues to be taken into account; that is, under Clause 242(2) as opposed to Clause 242(3). That was because practitioners were concerned that it will be some years before one quite knows how Clause 242(3) will work in terms of the jurisprudence. Therefore, they wanted the matters to be higher up the pecking order. I am obliged to admit the force of the noble and learned Lord’s argument about the third proposed subsection, which was that the court’s judgment would start to stand in for the judgment of the directors. As he rightly pointed out, we are not keen to have that happen. As I said, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having put the information on the record. It gives the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and me something to talk to people about in trying to pull this issue together. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.