(1)If the court is satisfied that a petition under this Part is well founded, it may make such order as it thinks fit for giving relief in respect of the matters complained of.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the court's order may—
(a)regulate the conduct of the company's affairs in the future;
(b)require the company—
(i)to refrain from doing or continuing an act complained of, or
(ii)to do an act that the petitioner has complained it has omitted to do;
(c)authorise civil proceedings to be brought in the name and on behalf of the company by such person or persons and on such terms as the court may direct;
(d)require the company not to make any, or any specified, alterations in its articles without the leave of the court;
(e)provide for the purchase of the shares of any members of the company by other members or by the company itself and, in the case of a purchase by the company itself, the reduction of the company's capital accordingly.
Cases considering section 996 (155)
[2026] UKSC 6 · 25 February 2026Interprets
The section gives the court the widest possible discretion to select relief. A payment obligation arises from the resulting judicial order, not by virtue of the section itself. The jurisdiction therefore falls outside sections 8 and 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 (see paras [137]; [145]-[146]; [155]-[158]).
The power to make such order as the court thinks fit means that a petitioner has no entitlement to compensation or any other particular remedy. This wide remedial discretion prevents a requested monetary order from being a sum recoverable by enactment (see paras [137]; [145]-[146]).
The listed remedies are non-exhaustive illustrations of the court’s remedial discretion and include both monetary and non-monetary possibilities. Their variety makes remedy-dependent limitation arbitrary and unworkable (see paras [137]; [145]-[152]).
[2020] UKPC 2 · 27 January 2020Limits
The unfair-prejudice remedy under section 996 was distinguished because valuation occurs within a discretionary purchase remedy. The quasi-partnership exception did not govern section 238. (see paras [37]-[40])
[2025] EWCA Civ 708 · 9 June 2025
Once unfair prejudice is established, the provision gives a wide discretion to remedy past prejudice and cure it for the future. A controlling director’s fiduciary breach justified an unconditional, non-discounted buy-out rather than relief confined by contractual causation. (see paras [129]-[139])
135 more judgments, and what each says about section 996, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.