Report on Multi-Unit Developments - Law Reform Commission
Report on Multi-Unit Developments - Law Reform Commission
Report on Multi-Unit Developments - Law Reform Commission
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
that the pers<strong>on</strong> should take reas<strong>on</strong>able steps to place themselves in a positi<strong>on</strong><br />
to bring an informed and independent judgment to bear <strong>on</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>-making. 78<br />
Directors may also face liability pers<strong>on</strong>ally where they perform their duties<br />
negligently. 79<br />
3.85 It is clear that <strong>on</strong>e reas<strong>on</strong> why owners‘ management companies fail<br />
to comply with company law is because some directors do not fulfil their<br />
fiduciary duties as directors with due diligence. Some individuals may not have<br />
appreciated the legal effect of holding a directorship of an owners‘ management<br />
company, that it is seen as a title rather than a role with resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities.<br />
3.86 One approach to failure by a director to fulfil his or her duties is to<br />
enforce the company law code to its full extent. Thus, the Office of the Director<br />
of Corporate Enforcement is empowered, in certain situati<strong>on</strong>s, to seek a<br />
disqualificati<strong>on</strong> order against a pers<strong>on</strong> who is a director of a company at the<br />
time a process of strike-off is commenced where the process ends with the<br />
company actually being struck off. 80 This has a profound effect where the<br />
director in questi<strong>on</strong> also holds directorship of other companies in a professi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
capacity. 81 It is thus obvious that the threat of ODCE acti<strong>on</strong> may have some<br />
effect insofar as it may affect directors who are also directors of other<br />
companies.<br />
3.87 Alternatively and or additi<strong>on</strong>ally, where a director is negligent in<br />
performing his or her duties, a company has the opti<strong>on</strong> of enforcing financial<br />
liability against him or her. 82 This was underlined in the ODCE‘s Draft<br />
Guidance:<br />
―We think it at least c<strong>on</strong>ceivable that the directors and secretary who<br />
allowed the company to become struck-off could be required to<br />
reimburse a company for costs, expenses and damages which arose<br />
as a result of the strike-off. Secti<strong>on</strong> 383(3) of the Companies Act<br />
1963 provides that it is the duty of each director and secretary of a<br />
78<br />
AWA Ltd.. v. Daniels (1992) 7 ASCR 759 at 864-865.<br />
79<br />
See Courtney, paragraph 10.064 where he observes that directors may incur<br />
tortious liability for negligent behaviour where not under indemnity of the type<br />
envisaged by the Companies Act 1963, Sch 1, Table A, Part I, model reg 138.<br />
80<br />
Companies Act 1990, s. 160(3A).<br />
81<br />
This may often particularly be the case where developers are still in c<strong>on</strong>trol of the<br />
management company.<br />
82<br />
See Keane, paragraphs 27.127-27.129.<br />
85