Some good advice here. Just to clarify, don't be fobbed off with the annual accounts which often do not show the reality 'behind the curtains' but you want to see the management accounts - who has paid what - what owing/owed- bank accounts - (part of what is provided to the accountants to help them create the annual accounts). As a director you are entitled, and as kulture says, you have a duty, to look at these as it is you and the other directors who are responsible for running the company.
You also of course have the right to call meetings of the Board and of the shareholders and to formalise the discussion (your questions, the responses etc).
To clarify bbbbb's point that 25% is no better than 10%, (in answering appyamer's statement that they need 76% for control) he is referring to the fact that, whilst ordinary resolutions need only a 51% majority vote, special resolutions (eg to change the articles etc) require 75%. The other three have that level of control.
However you are in a better position than 10% (apart from the right to a higher dividend) because, and in the (likely) absence of any provision in place that gives a casting vote in a deadlock eg to a 'chairman' you only need to persuade one of the other three to your point of view to block any shareholder (general meeting) resolution the others may wish to pass (eg to dismiss you from the Board) or board decision to reduce your work. This can be very important when I am conducting a boardroom mediation.
You appear to have been told the company has problems but if the only information is that it is running a £60K loss, is that really the case? The company has not yet traded 12 months and will be carrying much start up cost. It is often the case that successful fast growing companies still make a loss in the first year , in fact it is often planned that way for cashflow/tax reasons or to show steady growth over the initial years to attract investors etc. If you has some big clients to start you off with then failed to attract adequate new clients in years 2 and 3 to fuel the planned growth, or to replace unhappy first customers, then the company has an inherent problem. To avoid such future problems if you have a exit strategy to attract investors fro growth, then you may ensure at least a loss on paper (delay invoicing, lengthen projects etc) so that if new business does slow down in year 2 you can at least show growth on paper by carrying some of the year 1 revenue into year 2.
You say business in fact is good with work coming in (and the others currently pricing a new job in Spain - which I presume, from taking 3 directors out of the country, is of some significant value) .
As jules12345 says they cannot force you to sell your shares although, subject to any protective provisions in the Articles or any agreements reached, they could dilute them to lower than 25% on the basis that further capital id required which you cannot provide but others can.
Another 'power' you have is the power of resignation form your work. Your role seems to be a key one so that they would have to pay a full salary to your replacement.
In boardroom mediation I help all parties to understand the potential downsides of not reaching an agreement eg for the others it includes the inability in the future to benefit from lower tax when being paid through dividends without having to give 25% to you (even if they dismiss you from employment) , and to continually be accountable to you as a shareholder through meetings and reports etc even though you may be working for a competitor (not being a director removes form you the duty to not compete) and ,of course, your right to take a significant share of any sale of the company in years to come even though you may not have been contributing through work). So whilst there are downsides for you as a minority shareholder, it is not all one way. Most important fo all you have to ask yourself if you need the aggravation of being in a business with three others who are again you and whether it can be changed.
Once everyone has been given a list of the potential downsides for them of not reaching an agreement, it becomes easier for all to see the sense in reaching a settlement.
