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.

10.2.1 Who will be Liable?<br />

Unlike the earlier statutes, only directors will be subjected to liability in respect<br />

<strong>of</strong> wrongful trading, insolvent trading or reckless trading. Directors in this<br />

context include shadow directors although anyone who gives advice in his<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>essional capacity is excluded. 13 Due to directors‟ extensive powers and<br />

authority on the management and the company‟s future, the law demands that<br />

they be responsible and accountable for their actions. This modern concept <strong>of</strong><br />

responsibility and accountability, however, are polar opposites to the two main<br />

principles <strong>of</strong> company law, namely, the separate legal entity and limited liability,<br />

and there is no way to reconcile one with the other.<br />

<strong>The</strong> decision to exclude managers from this duty is to compel directors to be<br />

more responsible and accountable in the company, for they are considered to be<br />

the minds <strong>of</strong> the company. 14 <strong>The</strong> decisions in HL Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v<br />

TJ Graham & Sons Ltd 15 indicate that managers are also considered as the brain<br />

<strong>of</strong> the company and it is submitted they should be included in the duty. It will<br />

benefit all parties, including creditors, if those who make decisions on company‟s<br />

direction were to be held liable and accountable because they will then have to be<br />

cautious and meticulous.<br />

It also means that directors can no longer use lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge or information<br />

as the basis to avoid liability, for the courts have been very strict in the<br />

13 See section 126 (4) <strong>of</strong> the New Zealand Companies Act 1993; section 251(2) <strong>of</strong> the UK<br />

Insolvency Act 1986; section 9 (part 1.2) <strong>of</strong> the Australian Corporations Act 2001.<br />

14 However, see the judgment <strong>of</strong> Lord Denning MR in the case <strong>of</strong> HL Bolton (Engineering) Co<br />

Ltd v TJ Graham & Sons Ltd [1957] 1 QB 159 at 172; His Lordship stated “ A company may<br />

in many ways be likened to a human body. It has a brain and nerve centre which controls what<br />

it does. It also has hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the<br />

centre. Some <strong>of</strong> the people in the company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more<br />

than hands to do the work and cannot be said to represent the directing mind or will. Others are<br />

directors and a manager who represents the directing mind and will <strong>of</strong> the company, and<br />

controls what it does. <strong>The</strong> state <strong>of</strong> mind <strong>of</strong> these managers is the state <strong>of</strong> mind <strong>of</strong> the company<br />

and is treated by the law as such.” <strong>The</strong> decision indicates that managers are also considered<br />

the brain <strong>of</strong> the company and therefore should not be excluded from liability.<br />

15 [1957] 1 QB 159.<br />

228

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!