Parker J establish the discussion of Mr. Acton aberrant subordinate the forthcoming occurrences as he has overlook the penetrations of twain the subjects of Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd and O'Neill v Phillips . In the subject of Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd there is an direct admonition by Lord Wilberforce that a crew – uniform if it is a quasi – firm – can not be treated as if it were a firm as laid down by Lord Hoffmann in O'Neill v Phillips.
Secondly it must be illustrious that for arriving at the penetration of cessation a curved up prescribe on the righteous and honest plea and subordinate the preparations of exception 459, Lord Hoffmann season a correspondent by applying the forced of Lord Wilberforce in the Ebrahimi’s subject. As per Lord Hoffmann in O'Neill v Phillips, the curved up government is not circumnavigate in room than the remedies beneficial subordinate s. 459. Cessation of a curved up prescribe on a crew can be equated to the cessation of a termination determination on the crew.
Moreover s 125 (2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 explicitly identifies that the curved up prescribe should be enslaved solely as a conclusive recourse (as per the statutory preparation normal over). Parker J was of the conviction that when there was no plea which is wrongful subordinate s 459 then the crew scarcity not be injure up subordinate s 122 applying the principles of righteous and honest occurrences. If such an prescribe is ignoringed it would be aberrant after a while the penetration pronounced by Lord Hoffmann in O'Neill v Phillips
Parker J so opined that if the penetration in the subject of Re R A Noble & Sons (Clothing) Ltd is to be enslaved as warrant for after a whileholding the affirmation that an wrongful inaugurate which could not be stated so for the end of s 459 can be a subject for curved up on righteous and honest plea, then such warrant is aberrant after a while the penetration in O'Neill v Phillips. Hence Parker J concluded that” if the inaugurate by the superiority relied on by Surendra in the minute subject is not wrongful for the ends of s 459, it cannot establish a subject for a curved-up prescribe on the 'righteous and honest' plea.
” Conclusion: Based on the discussion of Mr. Acton and the comments of Parker J in his penetration in the subject of ReGuidzone Ltd the forthcoming misentrys escape in honor of the remedies beneficial to the lad shareholders. An partition of the legitimate aspects of the misentry of security of the lad interests of the crew is restless oppositions to the public administration stated in the subject of Foss v Harbottle had been admited. It has been stated that the lad shareholder can sue subordinate the flusht of derivative actions, idiosyncratic wrongs and opposite wrongfully disadvantageous inaugurate.
Several occurrence and acts bear been stated subordinate the law having the characteristics of wrongfully disadvantageous subordinate s 459. Subordinate all such flusht subjects bear been firm by providing misapply remedies to the applicants and the courts bear arrived at the penetration of curved up solely as a conclusive recourse. Thus s 459 is having ample circumnavigate room and has been applied uniformly in great sum of subjects to set lead for the ‘unfairly disadvantageous plea’. Hence it can be cherished that s 459 has a ample circumnavigate room than s 122.
Although s 122 of the Insolvency Act 1986 gives the potentiality to the courts to ignoring the prescribe of curved up of the crew subordinate righteous and honest occurrences, s 125 provides an choice to the final penetration by restricting the room for curved up by requiring the courts to question in to options beneficial for set-rightive the burden of the applicant other than curved up. Hence the guile of the legislation is not to ignoring the curved up the prescribe at the highest request as nature claimed by Mr. Acton.
Parker J is set-right in refuting Mr. Acton’s discussion that solely consequently it is proved that the crew is quasi – firm it automatically becomes subjected to the curved up penetration which is inset-right and aberrant after a while the penetration abandoned in the subject o’neill. It is so inset-right to affect that though the act committed is not ‘unfairly disadvantageous’ subordinate s 459, it can be cherished as a righteous and honest plea for curved up, solely consequently the act was committed by the superiority opposite the lad.
Parker J is so set-right in apothegm that Mr. Acton’s claim that S 122 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has a circumnavigate room than s 459 of the Companies Act 1985 is not grateful as according to the forcible preparations of s. 125 provides for the quest of all other choices antecedently a penetration for curved up could be ignoringed and this definitely includes importance of s 459. On this preface s 459 has a circumnavigate room than s 122.
Parker J is relying on the penetration of Lord Hoffmann in the O’niell subject that a crew can not be treated as if it were a firm uniform if it is a quasi – firm as quoted by Lord Wilberforce in Ebrahimi subject. Perhaps this is the highest penetration to bias Parker J in pronouncing his penetration in the subject of Guidestone Ltd. On this basis solely Parker J finds the discussion of Mr. Acton aberrant after a while the fixed law.
Though there are other occurrenceors which weighed after a while the penetration of Parker J the occurrence that the crew Guidestone Ltd scarcity not be treated as a firm is the establishation on which Parker J has made his misentry. Subordinate these flusht the penetration of Parker J that “The government to constitute a curved-up prescribe on the righteous and honest plea subordinate s 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was not circumnavigate than the government to admit deliverance subordinate s 459.
Accordingly if the inaugurate by the superiority relied on by S was not wrongful for the ends of s 459, it could not establish a subject for a curved-up prescribe on the righteous and honest plea” can be considered as in agreement after a while law and original righteousice. Hence in sight of the precedent it can be concluded that Mr. Acton’s comments encircling the correlativeness between exception 459 of the Companies Act 1985 and exception 122(1) (g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 cannot be considered as having some validity and the version of Parker J in Re Guidezone  2 BCLC 321 is positively sound subordinate law.