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.

In the beginning, Australia adopted the UK model <strong>of</strong> fraudulent trading<br />

provisions in its legislation but later departed from this position and now has its<br />

own provision to combat the problem. In 1961, the Uniform Companies<br />

legislation introduced a new criminal liability in regard to the <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> the<br />

company who was “a party to the incurring <strong>of</strong> a debt by the company without any<br />

reasonable expectation that the debt could be paid.” 7 Later, civil liability in<br />

relation to the same circumstances was introduced. 8 This liability was later<br />

enacted in the Malaysian and New Zealand legislation. While New Zealand has<br />

since amended its laws to the existing provisions in its Companies Act 1993, the<br />

old law still survives in the Malaysian Companies Act 1965. Australia too has<br />

amended its statute and the current position is now in section 588G <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Corporations Act 2001.<br />

Like Australia, New Zealand had fraudulent trading provisions which are similar<br />

to section 332 <strong>of</strong> the UK Companies Act 1948. In 1980, two new provisions were<br />

inserted under section 320 Companies Act 1955 to make directors personally<br />

liable. 9 <strong>The</strong> first provision, was similar to the Australian section in the Uniform<br />

Act 1961, namely “where any person was while an <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> the company<br />

knowingly a party to the contracting <strong>of</strong> a debt by the company and did not, at the<br />

time the debt was contracted, honestly believe on reasonable grounds that the<br />

company would be able to pay the debt when it fell due for payment as well as all<br />

its other debts (including future and contingent debts).” Another provision<br />

included was “where any person was, while an <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> the company,<br />

knowingly a party to the carrying on <strong>of</strong> any business <strong>of</strong> the company in a reckless<br />

manner.” Due to some deficiencies, the Law Commission in 1989 proposed<br />

changes and, as a result, the current reckless trading under section 135 was<br />

enacted.<br />

7 Australia Law Reform Commission, General Insolvency Inquiry Report (ALRC R45 Vol 1<br />

1988) at [278] <br />

at 25 January 2008.<br />

8 Ibid.<br />

9 John Farrar and Mark Russell Company Law and Securities Regulation in New Zealand<br />

(Butterworths, Wellington 1985) at 453-454.<br />

226

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!