Royal British Bank V Turquand Summary

It originally mitigated the harshness of the constructive notice doctrine and.

Royal british bank v turquand summary. Turquand 1856 6e b. Plaintiff declared against defendants a joint stock company completely registered under stat. This indoor management rule or the rule in turquand s case is applicable in most of the common law world. The rule was enunciated by the court to mitigate the rigors of the constructive notice doctrine.

Royal british bank v turquand. 7 8 vict. Turquand was the official manager liquidator of the insolvent cameron s coalbrook steam coal and swansea and london railway company. 110 on a bond signed by two directors under the seal of the company whereby the.

It was incorporated under the joint stock companies act 1844. The rule in the case of royal british bank v turquand 1 is commonly known as turquand s rule or the indoor management rule. It stipulates that an outsider dealing with a company in good faith is entitled to assume that there has been compliance with the articles of association and bylaws of the company and that the outsider need not question the formalities of the. The company had given a bond for 2000 to the royal british bank which secured the company s drawings on its current account.

The case of royal british bank v turquand refined the basic common law of agency to articulate the doctrine of indoor management. 1856 tuesday may 1st 1856. According to the rule propounded in this case although those dealing with a company were deemed to have notice of the contents of memorandum and articles they were not required to satisfy themselves that all the internal regulations se out therein had. Royal british bank v turquand 1856 6 e b 327 is a uk company law case that held people transacting with companies are entitled to assume that internal company rules are complied with even if they are not.

It originally mitigated the harshness of the constructive notice doctrine and. 4 canada business corporations act rsc 1985 c c 44. Royal british bank vs. 3 business corporations act rso 1990 c b16.

2 royal british bank v turquand 1856 6 el bl 327. This indoor management rule or the rule in turquand s case is applicable in most of the common law world. Cec 1856 the plaintiff sought payment from the defendants a joint stock company on a bond signed by two directors under the seal of the company whereby the company acknowledged themselves to be bound to the plaintiff in pounds 2 000. Royal british bank v turquand 6 ellis and blackburn 327 119 er 886 report date.

327 read in detail a person who deals with the company needs to look only into the memorandum of association and article of association to know the extent of authority and need not inquire into the regularity of internal proceedings. The court in royal british bank v.