led ▁Ste el ' s ▁director , ▁Mr ▁Sh enk man ▁was ▁interested ▁in ▁S SS ▁Ltd ▁( he ▁had ▁personally ▁guaranteed ▁a ▁deb t ▁to ▁British ▁Ste el ’ s ▁subs idi ary ▁Col v illes , ▁which ▁S SS ▁Ltd ▁ow ed ▁money ▁to ). ▁The ▁company ▁was ▁emp ower ed ▁to ▁grant ▁guarante es ▁under ▁its ▁articles ▁but ▁appro val ▁of ▁the ▁deal ▁was ▁irregular ▁because ▁Mr ▁Sh enk man ' s ▁personal ▁interest ▁meant ▁his ▁vote ▁should ▁not ▁have ▁counted ▁for ▁the ▁qu orum ▁at ▁the ▁meeting ▁appro ving ▁the ▁guarantee . ▁The ▁share hold ers ▁knew ▁of ▁the ▁irregular ity , ▁and ▁so ▁did ▁British ▁Ste el . ▁Rol led ▁Ste el ▁Product s ▁wanted ▁to ▁get ▁out ▁of ▁the ▁guarantee , ▁and ▁was ▁arg uing ▁it ▁was ▁un en force able ▁either ▁because ▁it ▁was ▁ult ra ▁v ires , ▁or ▁because ▁the ▁guarantee ▁had ▁been ▁created ▁without ▁proper ▁authority . ▁ ▁At ▁first ▁instance ▁Vin el ott ▁J ▁held ▁British ▁Ste el ’ s ▁knowledge ▁of ▁the ▁irregular ity ▁rendered ▁the ▁guarantee ▁ult ra ▁v ires , ▁void ▁and ▁in cap able ▁of ▁validation ▁with ▁the ▁members ’ ▁consent . ▁British ▁Ste el ▁appe aled . ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁The ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁transaction ▁was ▁not ▁ult ra ▁v ires ▁and ▁void . ▁Sim ply ▁because ▁a ▁transaction ▁is ▁entered ▁for ▁an ▁impro per ▁purpose ▁does ▁not ▁make ▁it ▁ult ra ▁v ires . ▁He ▁emphas ised ▁the ▁distinction ▁between ▁an