If the representations are received late, the director may instead ask that the said representations be read during the meeting. He may also be allowed to speak in the meeting on his protest against the intention to remove him as director. These are all provided for in Sections 168 (entitled Resolution to remove director) and 169 (entitled Director’s right to protest against removal) of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies Act 2006).
Going to Cretins Ltd. (or Cretins for short), the plan of Joan and Mike to remove Phillip out as a director of the company will depend on its membership structure. Whatever it is, the process will have to be in accordance with the afore-cited Sections 168 and 169 of the Companies Act 2006. If the only three directors, Phillip, Joan and Mike, are also the only members or shareholders of Cretins and they own the same number of shares, the process will be very simple. Since it will be a concerted effort of Joan and Mike, all they have to do is first requisition for a general meeting of the members where they will submit a resolution to remove Phillip. Pursuant to the procedural due process mechanism set out in Section 169, Phillip has to be served with a notice of the intended resolution to remove him. Phillip is entitled to submit written representations to protest against his removal. During the said meeting, Phillip is likewise entitled to speak out. At any rate, all these remedies available to Phillip will become moot and academic because Joan and Mike will ultimately vote for his removal as is their plan. The requirement of the law is an ordinary resolution which means that the vote of the members needed for the subject removal is a simple majority (THE FREE LIBRARY BY FARLEX).
As stated, the circumstances in the preceding paragraph are on the assumption that Joan, Mike and Phillip have the same number of