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 case <strong>of</strong> Secretary <strong>of</strong> State for Trade and Industry v Taylor, 58 a case under<br />

the Company Disqualification <strong>of</strong> Directors Act 1986, a director who knew <strong>of</strong> the<br />

company‟s impending liquidation but could not influence its board to take up his<br />

suggestion was held not to be unfit for the purpose <strong>of</strong> disqualification. <strong>The</strong> court<br />

went on to state that the fact the director failed to resign after protesting against<br />

further trading could not lead to the finding <strong>of</strong> unfitness. 59<br />

In New Zealand, the court‟s decision in Mason v Lewis 60 seems to incline<br />

towards directors having a duty to monitor the company despite engaging a third<br />

party to run it. Directors have to take reasonable steps to ensure that they are well<br />

aware <strong>of</strong> what is happening in the management <strong>of</strong> the company, as well as<br />

supervising its management.<br />

It is also a defence in Australia for a director to prove that he or she has taken all<br />

reasonable steps to prevent the company from incurring debts. 61 <strong>The</strong> section<br />

imposes a heavy burden on directors to take all reasonable steps, which means he<br />

or she will not be able to rely on the defence if the court is <strong>of</strong> the opinion that<br />

there are still measures which the director failed to implement.<br />

In the UK, once the court has identified the first sign <strong>of</strong> stress in the company, the<br />

next step is to examine the directors‟ conduct; a director can avoid liability if the<br />

court is satisfied that he or she had taken every step that ought to have been taken<br />

in order to minimise the potential loss to creditors. <strong>The</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> the phrase<br />

„ought to have taken‟ implies that what is required from directors is to take<br />

reasonable steps. In doing so, the court will consider the general knowledge, skill<br />

and experience <strong>of</strong> a reasonable director, as well as that <strong>of</strong> the particular director. 62<br />

58 [1997] 1 WLR 407.<br />

59 [1997] 1 WLR 407 at 414.<br />

60 [2006] 3 NZLR 225.<br />

61 Section 588H(4) <strong>of</strong> the Corporations Act 2001-„ It is a defence if it is proved that the person<br />

took all reasonable steps to prevent the company from incurring the debt.‟<br />

62 See section 214(4) (a) and (b) <strong>of</strong> the Insolvency Act 1986.<br />

241

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!