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.

judge adopted the principle <strong>of</strong> identification and stated the effect <strong>of</strong> incorporation is<br />

to have the directors acting in two capacities in which directors may act and in<br />

appropriate circumstances they are to be identified with the company itself. 133 In<br />

order to held them personally liable, there must be clear evidence that the directors<br />

are acting as agents or servants <strong>of</strong> the company. 134<br />

<strong>The</strong> decision was later followed by the English case <strong>of</strong> Williams v Natural Life<br />

Health Foods Ltd 135 although the House <strong>of</strong> Lords treated the matter within the<br />

confinement <strong>of</strong> the law <strong>of</strong> torts instead <strong>of</strong> relying on the principles <strong>of</strong> company law<br />

as in Ivory. 136 Lord Steyn pointed out the concept <strong>of</strong> limited liability could not be the<br />

decisive consideration in making the decision although it is relevant. This is because<br />

limited liability limits the shareholders‟ financial risk to the capital they subscribed<br />

to the company and is not intended to provide immunity from tortuous liability to<br />

directors or senior employees. 137<br />

<strong>The</strong> requirement in Trevor Ivory has imposed a burden on the claimant to establish<br />

special responsibility because <strong>of</strong> the doctrine <strong>of</strong> separate legal entity the presumption<br />

is that directors do not intend to assume responsibility but intend it to be the<br />

133 Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson[1992] 2 NZLR 517.<br />

134 Hardie Boys J in Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson[1992] 2 NZLR 517, 527 stated “What does run<br />

counter for the purposes and effect <strong>of</strong> incorporation is the failure to recognise the two capacities in<br />

which directors may act; that in appropriate circumstances they are to be identified with company<br />

itself, so that their acts are in truth the company‟s acts. Indeed, I consider that the nature <strong>of</strong><br />

corporate personality requires that this identification normally be the basic premise and that clear<br />

evidence be needed to displace it with a finding that a director is not acting as the company but as<br />

the company‟s agent or servant in a way that renders him personally liable.”<br />

135 [1997] 1 BCLC 131.<br />

136 For more discussions see Andrew Borrowdale and Mary-Anne Simpson “Directors Liability in<br />

Tort Recent Development” (1995) C&SLJ 400; Farrar “<strong>The</strong> Personal Liability” above n131;<br />

Grantham and Rickett above n126; Watson above n127 at 185-197 and articles referred therein.<br />

137 Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1997] 1 BCLC 131 at 834-835.<br />

217

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!