I think Antoinette Jucker may have overlooked one important aspect in her explanation about proxies (see [2007] Gazette, 19 April, 14).


This is that section 327 of the Companies Act 2006 requires one to look at the effect of the articles, and it is when Table A is read in that light that to me the result is chaos.



Adopting Ms Jucker's interpretation (even though I am not sure it is right), in trying to stop a company from setting a mandatory cut-off date absurdly early, it would have been easy in section 327 to say something like: 'Despite anything that may be said in a company's articles, a proxy may be received by a company at any time up to 48 hours before the time for holding the meeting.'



So why was that not done in the 2006 Act, which was written to clarify just this sort of thing?



I suggest no one actually thought about the wording of section 327 in the context of Table A (which is not in the Act), and so the interaction of the two sets of rules has been overlooked.



Bruce Manford, Monaco