14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

adopted in New Zealand, Australia and Malaysia and remains until today. 257<br />

Subsequent Acts expanded lists <strong>of</strong> circumstances <strong>of</strong> disqualification to include<br />

directors who had committed fraud, breach <strong>of</strong> duties, having a conviction <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences<br />

in relation to formation, promotion or management <strong>of</strong> companies. In addition,<br />

directors were also disqualified if they persistently failed to furnish company‟s<br />

financial documents and if proven to have been acting improperly, recklessly or<br />

incompetently in discharging duties.<br />

Attempts to disqualify directors on the basis <strong>of</strong> unfitness to manage a company was<br />

firstly made in the UK Insolvency Act 1976 258 and later re-enacted in the Companies<br />

Act 1985. 259 With the introduction <strong>of</strong> the Insolvency Act 1986, provisions on<br />

disqualification <strong>of</strong> directors in the Companies Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act 1985<br />

were repealed and enacted in separate legislation, the Company Directors<br />

Disqualification Act 1986. 260 At the time <strong>of</strong> the passing <strong>of</strong> the Company Directors<br />

Disqualification Act in 1986, the then Labour government had been promoting a free<br />

market ideology and the passing <strong>of</strong> an Act which imposed commercial morality did<br />

not reflect such beliefs. 261 However, the passing <strong>of</strong> the Act was seen as the response<br />

to complaints by the public that companies have sometimes been used as instruments<br />

<strong>of</strong> fraud by directors and as being consistent with responsibility and accountability<br />

principles. 262 It should be noted that the Cork committee emphasised that the aim <strong>of</strong><br />

disqualifying directors was not to punish but to protect members <strong>of</strong> the public from<br />

dishonest directors.<br />

257 Section 151(2)(b) <strong>of</strong> the New Zealand Companies Act 1993, section 206B(3) <strong>of</strong> the Australian<br />

Corporations Act 2001, section 125(1) <strong>of</strong> the Malaysian Companies Act 1965. In the UK, the<br />

provision is in section 11 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.<br />

258 Section 9 <strong>of</strong> the UK Insolvency Act 1976.<br />

259 Section 300 <strong>of</strong> the UK Companies Act 1985.<br />

260 Goode above n79 at [1-06]. <strong>The</strong> UK CDDA was further amended by the Insolvency Act 2000 and<br />

the Enterprise Act 2002.<br />

261 Sally Wheeler, Disqualification <strong>of</strong> Directors: A Broader <strong>View</strong> in Harry Rajak (ed) Insolvency Law<br />

<strong>The</strong>ory & Practice (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1993) 187 at 189.<br />

262 Ibid.<br />

70

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!