Chapter 7 Directors' Duties - alastairhudson.com
Chapter 7 Directors' Duties - alastairhudson.com
Chapter 7 Directors' Duties - alastairhudson.com
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
personal profits: first, if he has authorization to do so, in line with s.175 of the CA 2006;<br />
secondly, if he has resigned from his employment before <strong>com</strong>mencing the activities which<br />
led to the profit; and, thirdly, if the director had no powers at all to act as a director in practice<br />
before then making those personal profits. Each of these approaches is taken in turn.<br />
First, the <strong>com</strong>plex question of the acquisition of authorization in relation to <strong>com</strong>panies.<br />
Before considering this question in detail, it is important to understand the subtle differences<br />
between <strong>com</strong>panies and trusts. A number of cases dealing with <strong>com</strong>panies have been<br />
considered already. More recent cases in <strong>com</strong>pany law have suggested that this corporate<br />
opportunity doctrine will be pursued so that a director may be absolved from liability for<br />
secret profits if the <strong>com</strong>pany is not intending to pursue the opportunity from which the<br />
director earned his profits. So, in Island Export Finance Ltd v Umunna, 132 the <strong>com</strong>pany had a<br />
contract with the government of Cameroon to supply the government with post boxes. Mr<br />
Umunna resigned from the <strong>com</strong>pany once the contract was <strong>com</strong>pleted, having worked on that<br />
contract and acquired a great deal of expertise in that particular activity. The <strong>com</strong>pany ceased<br />
pursuing this line of business and after his resignation Mr Umunna entered into a similar<br />
contract on his own behalf. The <strong>com</strong>pany sued him for the personal profits which he made for<br />
himself under this second contract. The court held that Mr Umunna‟s fiduciary obligations<br />
towards the <strong>com</strong>pany did not cease once he resigned from its employment. This makes sense:<br />
if it were not the case, then no fiduciary could ever be bound by their fiduciary office if they<br />
had the good sense to resign immediately before breaching their duties. However, in this<br />
instance, the court found that the <strong>com</strong>pany had not been seeking to develop this sort of<br />
business opportunity at the time Mr Umunna had done so and therefore he had not interfered<br />
with a corporate opportunity.<br />
Secondly, we should consider the position of directors who have resigned from their<br />
employment and who then seek to exploit an opportunity on their own account. In Balston v<br />
Headline Filters Ltd, 133 a director had resigned from a <strong>com</strong>pany and leased premises with a<br />
view to starting up in business on his own account before a client of the <strong>com</strong>pany approached<br />
him and asked him to work for the <strong>com</strong>pany. Falconer J held that there was no breach of duty<br />
in these circumstances because there was nothing wrong with a director leaving his<br />
employment and setting up in business on his own account and, furthermore, there had not<br />
been any maturing business opportunity in this case which the director had diverted to<br />
himself. Therefore, in <strong>com</strong>pany law, it has been held that <strong>com</strong>pany directors may, assuming<br />
nothing in their contracts to the contrary prohibiting such an action under contract law, resign<br />
from their posts and on the next day begin activities which would previously have been in<br />
breach of their fiduciary duties. 134 Although, a director may not, even after resigning from her<br />
post, use either the <strong>com</strong>pany‟s property or information which she had acquired while still a<br />
director of the <strong>com</strong>pany to generate personal profits. 135 Clearly, if such behaviour were<br />
132 [1986] BCC 460.<br />
133 [1990] FSR 385.<br />
134 CMS Dolphin v. Simonet [2001] 2 BCLC 704 (Lawrence Collins J); Quarter Master UK Ltd v. Pyke [2005] 1<br />
BCLC 245, 264 (Mr Paul Morgan QC) and British Midland Tool Ltd v. Midland International Tooling Ltd<br />
[2003] 2 BCLC 523 (Hart J).<br />
135 Ultraframe UK Ltd v Fielding [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch), [2005] All ER (D) 397, per Lewison J.<br />
38