Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

DnaNudge Limited v Ventura Capital GP Limited

[2023] EWCA Civ 1142
Imagine a company with special 'A' shares and regular shares. The rules said that changing the special 'A' shares required special permission, but another rule seemed to let the regular shares change the 'A' shares without permission. The judge said that second rule was a mistake and the special permission was always needed.

Key Facts

  • DnaNudge Limited (the Company) appealed a High Court decision that the conversion of its Series A Preferred Shares to Ordinary Shares was void.
  • The conversion lacked the written consent of over 75% of Series A shareholders, as required by Article 10.1 of the Company's Articles of Association.
  • Ventura Capital GP Limited (Ventura), holding most of the Series A Shares, challenged the conversion.
  • The Articles defined "Investor Majority Consent" as written consent from holders of a majority of Ordinary and Series A Shares.
  • Article 9.2(a) allowed automatic conversion upon written notice from an Investor Majority.
  • Article 10.1 stipulated that varying or abrogating special share rights required over 75% consent from that share class.
  • A Shareholders' Agreement included a put option for Ventura to require the Company to buy back Series A Shares if a Qualifying IPO didn't happen by November 19, 2023.

Legal Principles

Interpretation of contracts involves ascertaining the meaning a reasonable person would convey, considering all reasonably available background knowledge to the parties.

Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896

Contract interpretation considers: natural meaning, other provisions, overall purpose, known facts/circumstances, commercial common sense, but excludes subjective intentions.

Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619

Even with unambiguous language, interpretation is iterative, testing meanings against other clauses and commercial consequences.

Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900

In rare cases, despite unambiguous language, corrective construction is used if a mistake is clear and the correction is evident.

Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] AC 1101

A term can be implied if necessary for business efficacy, clear and obvious, and doesn't contradict express terms.

Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services [2016] AC 742

Interpreting articles of association requires limited extrinsic evidence; focus on natural meaning, scheme/purpose, reasonably ascertainable facts, and commercial common sense.

Attorney-General of Belize v Belize Telecom [2009] 1 WLR 1988

Repayment of capital according to preference share rights is performance, not variation or abrogation.

Re Saltdean Estate Co Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1844

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The court found that Article 9.2(a)'s literal interpretation, allowing automatic conversion without Series A shareholder consent, led to incoherent and irrational results, contradicting other articles protecting those shareholders' special rights.

Article 9.2(a) requires compliance with Article 10.1 (75% consent).

The court employed corrective construction, finding a drafting error in not explicitly making Article 9.2(a) subject to Article 10.1. Alternatively, a term to this effect could be implied to ensure a coherent and rational interpretation of the articles.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.