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.

econcile the two judgments with one another; the decisions in Re William C<br />

Leith Brothers Ltd 95 was perceived as too broad while in Re Patrick & Lyon Ltd 96<br />

the construction was too rigid. 97 In Re White and Osmond (Parkstone) Ltd 98<br />

(unreported), an attempt was made by the judge to resolve the two divergent<br />

interpretations <strong>of</strong> the section. <strong>The</strong> judge distinguished between situations where<br />

there is a genuine belief that the company‟s fortune can be turned around and<br />

where it is very unlikely that the company will succeed; only in the latter will<br />

there be fraudulent trading. 99<br />

Lord H<strong>of</strong>fman in Aktieselskabet Dansk Skibsfinansiering v Brothers 100 referred to<br />

both judgments by Maugham J and Buckley J, and opined that fraudulent trading<br />

could not have been limited to situations mentioned by the two judges only, and<br />

whether directors are dishonest or not should be decided on the basis <strong>of</strong> the facts<br />

<strong>of</strong> each case. To do otherwise, the judge reasoned, would be a misuse <strong>of</strong><br />

authority. 101 Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Farrar, on the other hand, expressed his view that the<br />

decisions in Re William C Leith Brothers Ltd 102 and Re Patrick & Lyon Ltd 103<br />

95 (1932) 2 Ch 71.<br />

96 [1933] Ch 786.<br />

97 See John Farrar “Corporate Insolvency Law and the Law” (1976) JBL 214 at 224-225<br />

[“Corporate Insolvency”]; Farrar “Fraudulent Trading” above n78; R.C Williams “Fraudulent<br />

Trading” (1986) 4 C&SLJ 14 at 23-24; Keay above n2 at ch 5.<br />

98 Unreported 30 June 1960; See also Keay above n2 at 55.<br />

99 Buckley J stated in his judgment “in my judgment, there is nothing wrong in the fact that<br />

directors incur credit at a time when, to their knowledge, the company is not able to meet all its<br />

liabilities as they fell due. What is manifestly wrong is if directors allow a company to incur<br />

credit at a time when the business is being carried on in such circumstances that it is clear that<br />

the company will never be able to satisfy its creditors. However, there is nothing to say that<br />

directors who genuinely believe that the clouds will roll away and the sunshine <strong>of</strong> prosperity<br />

will shine upon them again and disperse the fog <strong>of</strong> their depression are not entitled to incur<br />

credit to help them over the bad time”<br />

100 [2001] 2 BCLC 324 at 332-333.<br />

101 [2001] 2 BCLC 324 at 332-333.<br />

102 (1932) 2 Ch 71.<br />

103 1933] Ch 786.<br />

249

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!