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.

discovered that the director had engaged in fraudulent trading. However, it is also<br />

possible for a company to commence proceedings under section 304(1) <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Companies Act 1965 as shown in Kawin Industrial Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Tay<br />

Tiong Soong 154<br />

In LMW Electronics Pte Ltd v Ang Chuang Juay & Ors, 155 during the subsistence <strong>of</strong><br />

the creditor‘s civil action against the company it was found that directors had<br />

unlawfully dissipated the assets and funds <strong>of</strong> the company. Subsequently, the<br />

creditor was left with a mere paper judgment. <strong>The</strong> creditor then commenced an<br />

action under section 304(1) to make the directors personally liable for the judgment<br />

sums obtained for unpaid goods. <strong>The</strong> court, after finding that fraud existed, ordered<br />

the directors to be jointly and severally liable for the judgment sums. This case<br />

illustrated the situation when section 304(1) has been invoked "in any other<br />

proceedings against the company," when fraudulent trading was discovered during a<br />

civil action against the company. From the few cases being brought before the court,<br />

it seems section 304(1) has been used by creditors as means to enforce unsatisfied<br />

judgment sums against directors when the company is insolvent.<br />

<strong>The</strong> position in New Zealand is not much different from that in the UK and<br />

Malaysia. This can be seen in Mason v Lewis, 156 where the court held that the<br />

standard approach in quantifying the amount <strong>of</strong> contribution under section 301 starts<br />

by looking at the deterioration in the company‘s financial position between the date<br />

<strong>of</strong> the breach and the date <strong>of</strong> liquidation. In analysing the relationship between<br />

section 301 and section 135, the court observed that it is important not to conflate the<br />

two sections because they deal with two separate issues. Section 135 is concerned<br />

with liability, while section 301 is the appropriate relief. Further, when deciding on<br />

director‘s liability for reckless trading under section 135, the court has to apply an<br />

154 [2009] 1 MLJ 723.<br />

155 [2010] 1 MLJ 185.<br />

156 [2006] 3 NZLR 225 at 241.<br />

345

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!