[1] Is it possible to say that it is not just and equitable that that state of things should not be allowed to continue, and that the Court should not, intervene and say this is not what the parties contemplated by the arrangement into which they entered?

But ought not precisely the same principles to apply to a case like this where in substance it is a partnership in the form or the guise of a private company?

It is a private company, and there is no way to put an end to the state of things which now exists except by means of a compulsory order.

It has been urged upon us that, although it is admitted that the “just and equitable” clause is not to be limited to cases ejusdem generis, it has nevertheless been held, according to the authorities, not to apply except where the substratum of the company has gone or where there is a complete deadlock.

Those are the two instances which are given, but I should be very sorry, so far as my individual opinion goes, to hold that they are strictly the limits of the “just and equitable” clause as found in the Companies Act.