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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Directors must weigh any particular decisions in good faith and belief that any action<br />

taken is in the furtherance <strong>of</strong> the company‟s interests in the future. 92 If they do so, it<br />

will be very difficult for the court to find them liable for failure to consider creditors‟<br />

interests. Case law has suggested that as long as directors have acted in good faith<br />

they will be protected from liability even when their decisions are not in the<br />

shareholders‟ best interests. 93 When making decisions on the issue <strong>of</strong> whether<br />

directors have breached the duty to consider creditors interests, courts would have to<br />

look at various aspects and balance them accordingly before making any judgment.<br />

<strong>The</strong> courts‟ function to decide whether directors have breached their duty has also<br />

been subjected to scrutiny. <strong>The</strong> concern is whether courts are the appropriate forum<br />

to decide on risk-taking since judges do not have expertise in commercial matters. 94<br />

Some decided cases, 95 however, have proved otherwise, with judges giving thought<br />

to various considerations before making decisions. In Facia Footwear Ltd (in<br />

administration) v Hinchliffe, 96 the court emphasized that there has not always been a<br />

clear perimeter between acceptable risks and non-acceptable risks, hence careful<br />

consideration is important. <strong>The</strong>se cases have demonstrated that despite having to<br />

consider various competing interests, judges are able to make fair and competent<br />

92 Gregory V. Varallo and Jesse A. Finkelstein “Fiduciary Obligations <strong>of</strong> Directors <strong>of</strong> the Financially<br />

Troubled Company” (1992) 48 Bus Law 239 at 243.<br />

93 Re W & M Roith Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 432; Punt v Symons & Co Ltd [1903] 2 CH 506; Hoggs v<br />

Cramphorn Ltd & Ors [1967] Ch 254.<br />

94 Cheffins above n8 at 543.<br />

95 See decisions in Nicholson v Permakraft (NZ) (1985) 3 ACLC 453; Re Welfab Engineers Ltd [1990]<br />

BCC 600; Linton v Telnet Pty Ltd (1999) 30 ACSR 465; Brady v Brady (1988) 3 BCC 535 where<br />

court have considered various factors and decided in favour <strong>of</strong> the directors.<br />

96 [1998] 1 BCLC 218 at 228.<br />

137

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!