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.

equivalent to medical negligence cases; 12 what a reasonable director believes to be a<br />

reasonable business prospect. This is also consistent with the aim <strong>of</strong> the Law<br />

Commission when proposing reform to section 320 because it inhibited the use <strong>of</strong><br />

company as a vehicle for taking risks. 13 <strong>The</strong> Law Commission conceded in certain<br />

circumstances it is legitimate for the company to take risks and in that case no<br />

liability should be imposed on directors should it fail. 14 (This area <strong>of</strong> law will be<br />

explored in detail in the next two chapters.)<br />

8.3 Liquidity<br />

When a company is having financial difficulties, it is not necessary that it will end up<br />

in insolvency. This is because the company may be facing a temporary illiquidity<br />

which is a normal occurrence for any businesses. <strong>The</strong> New Zealand courts make a<br />

distinction between risks directors are allowed to take for the purpose <strong>of</strong> restoring the<br />

company‟s liquidity, and those which are likely to lead to insolvency. Directors will<br />

only be liable if the risks they have taken are deemed to be illegitimate. 15 Risks<br />

which are deemed to be legitimate signify the right <strong>of</strong> the company to continue to<br />

trade and take risks for the purpose <strong>of</strong> restoring liquidity. 16<br />

In deciding whether a company is insolvent under the Australian Corporations Act<br />

2001, the court has to refer to the facts <strong>of</strong> each case and based on the company‟s<br />

12 Mountfort v Tasman Pacific Airlines <strong>of</strong> NZ Ltd [2006] 1 NZLR 104 at 114; in medical negligence<br />

cases enunciated in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 the court<br />

looked at whether acceptable pr<strong>of</strong>essional standards have been complied with unless such standards<br />

are shown to be wholly unreasonable.<br />

13 Law Commission Company Law Reform and Restatement (NZLC R9,1989) at [516].<br />

14 Ibid.<br />

15 Mountfort v Tasman Pacific Airlines <strong>of</strong> NZ Ltd [2006] 1 NZLR 104.<br />

16 Mountfort v Tasman Pacific Airlines <strong>of</strong> NZ Ltd [2006] 1 NZLR 104.<br />

173

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!