Company’s articles provided that any reduction in capital would be a variation in class rights of the preference shares. D claimed that consent of class of preference shareholders was not required as a ‘reduction’ for purposes of articles did not include ‘cancellation’. Held:
· ‘Reduction’ did include a ‘cancellation’
· Therefore consent of class of non-preference shareholders was required
Ø This even though in event company had not made specific provision, consent of class would not have been required.