This article examines leading cases in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, Singapore and Malaysia (all of which have borrowed this provision from the same British source) in order to establish the circumstances in which courts exercise these powers. The cases seem to demonstrate that courts do, in the majority of cases, exercise restraint in invoking discretion and take particular care not to interfere either in the contract embodied in the articles and memorandum or to take sides in factional intra-corporate struggles. However, the cases in which courts have interfered with the arrangement in the articles seem to suggest that the power conferred on courts to convene meetings should be expressly limited, to prevent any such unjustified assumption of judicial power.