The appellants challenged the valuation of dissenting shareholders' shares in a closed-end investment holding company, arguing that fair value should have been determined by net asset value rather than stock market trading price.
The court held that the appropriate valuation methodology depends on the facts of each case and accepted expert evidence that market price was the better indicator in light of the issuer's nature, the illiquidity of some portfolio assets, and the trading history of the shares.
The court found it was open to the applications judge to prefer that expert evidence and concluded there was no error in adopting the market value approach.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
