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.

unlimited amount. It is submitted that the ‗contribution‘ in this section refers to the<br />

loss suffered by the company as a result <strong>of</strong> fraudulent trading 114 while in section<br />

304(1) a director may be responsible for all liabilities or losses incurred from the<br />

date <strong>of</strong> fraudulent trading.<br />

<strong>The</strong> punitive element in the Malaysian provision is expected since it originated from<br />

the old UK fraudulent trading section which was based on criminal liability. 115 <strong>The</strong><br />

main purpose <strong>of</strong> imposing a duty on directors at that time was to curb the incidents<br />

where those who had been entrusted with public funds misused them; hence the<br />

punishment.<br />

11.3.4 Civil Liability for Wrongful Trading, Reckless Trading<br />

and Insolvent Trading<br />

<strong>The</strong> civil effect <strong>of</strong> breaching wrongful trading in section 214 <strong>of</strong> the UK Insolvency<br />

Act 1986 is similar to the fraudulent trading in section 213 <strong>of</strong> the Insolvency Act<br />

1986; namely ‗the court may declare that person is to be liable to make such<br />

contribution (if any) to the company‘s assets as the court thinks proper‘. <strong>The</strong> New<br />

Zealand reckless trading provisions in section 135 and section 136 (duty in relation<br />

to obligation) <strong>of</strong> the Companies Act 1993 do not specify any consequences <strong>of</strong> the<br />

breach and therefore reference has to be made to other provision(s) in the Act.<br />

In Mason v Lewis, 116 the Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal held that if there is a breach <strong>of</strong> section 135,<br />

the court has the discretion to decide as to what recovery should be required under<br />

section 301. Hence, it indicates that section 301 should be used to claim for a<br />

remedy. Although sections 135 and 136 are usually initiated when the company is<br />

wound up and creditors are specifically mentioned, the section, in principle, could<br />

114 Courts' interpretation will be looked at later in section 11.3.7 below.<br />

115 This is one <strong>of</strong> the problems found by the Cork Committee - See Cork Report: Report <strong>of</strong> the Review<br />

Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice, Cmnd 8558 (1982) at [1776] [―Cork Report‘].<br />

116 [2006] 3 NZLR 225, 234.<br />

334

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!