The action went to proof before Lord Tyre in October 2015 and, after 24 days of evidence, Lord Tyre found that the petitioners' interests had been unfairly prejudiced and ordered that the petitioners' shares be bought by the company. However, despite the value of the petitioners' holdings being £20,614,400 out of a total value of £32,000,000 Lord Tyre ordered that the shares be bought for their subscription value of £2,444,000 because he considered that the first petitioner was a "bad leaver" in terms of the Articles of Association of the company. Inevitably the petitioners reclaimed this decision to the Inner House on the basis that the effect of the Lord Ordinary's decision was to reward those guilty of prejudicing the petitioners while materially prejudicing the petitioners further by devaluing their shareholding. They separately argued that there was no basis in evidence for the Lord Ordinary finding that the first petitioner was a bad leaver. Finally, they argued that the bad leaver provisions of the articles fell foul of the penalty rule.
The Extra Division was split in its disposal of the reclaiming motion. However, the court was in agreement as to the principles that applied to such petitions. They started by outlining that the exercise of its powers under section 996 involves a wide discretion by the court and that that discretion is to be exercised for the purpose of providing the petitioner with "relief" or a "remedy" under the section. They also held (contrary to the petitioners' submissions) that this discretion extends beyond choosing a remedy. So, once the Lord Ordinary had decided that the appropriate remedy was the purchase of shares by the company he still had a wide discretion to determine the price at which the shares should be purchased. It was not, according to the court, the case that he had completely unfettered discretion. Rather he had to exercise his discretion "rationally and judicially, in accordance with settled legal principle, upholding any legal agreement between the parties and on the basis of the evidence before him, not on the basis of supposition or conjecture". At that point, however, Lord Menzies disagreed with the approach taken by Lord Malcolm and Lord Brodie.