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.

civil penalty compensation. As such, an applicant for civil penalty compensation for<br />

breach <strong>of</strong> section 588G(2) has a choice between the two different measures <strong>of</strong> award.<br />

11.3.7.2 Factors Influencing Quantum <strong>of</strong> Award<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is general consensus in all jurisdictions that the court‘s power to grant a<br />

maximum contribution order is based on the net deficiencies between the date <strong>of</strong> the<br />

act and the date <strong>of</strong> liquidation for insolvent trading, 168 or in the case <strong>of</strong> fraudulent<br />

trading, the amount equivalent to the assets misappropriated. 169 Once the maximum<br />

amount has been determined by the court, it is not obliged to make the maximum<br />

amount and is given a wide discretion to decide whether to reduce the final award.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are various factors which the court considers when determining the correct<br />

sums. Courts in New Zealand rely on three matters in reaching the quantum <strong>of</strong> relief;<br />

causation, culpability and duration. 170 In UK and Malaysia, a similar attitude can be<br />

glimpsed from the courts‘ decisions. In Australia, in addition to causation, there has<br />

to be a link between the company‘s liquidation and the loss suffered by the company.<br />

11.3.7.2.1 Causation<br />

A director‘s liability to contribute to the assets <strong>of</strong> the company depends on the<br />

connection between the carrying on <strong>of</strong> the business recklessly/wrongfully, and the<br />

loss creditors‘ suffer as a consequence. 171 <strong>The</strong> court in the UK adopted the principle<br />

168 See Re Produce Marketing Consortium (No 2) [1989] BCLC 520, Re Brian D Pierson [2001]<br />

BCLC 275 in the UK; for New Zealand see South Pacific Shipping Limited (in liq); Lower v<br />

Traveller [2005] 3 NZLR 479; Mason v Lewis[2006] 3 NZLR 225.<br />

169 Morphitis v Bernasconi and others[2003] Ch 552; Siow Yoon Keong v H Rosen Engineering BV<br />

[2003] 4 MLJ 569; Kawin Industrial Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) v Tay Tiong Soong [2009] 1 MLJ<br />

723; LMW Electronics Pte Ltd v Ang Chuang Juay & Ors[2010] 1 MLJ 185.<br />

170 Fatupaito v Bates [2001] 3 NZLR 386; Lower v Traveller [2005] 3 NZLR 479; Mason v<br />

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

171 Lower v Traveller [2005] 3 NZLR 479 at 498.<br />

348

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!