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.

has to decide at which end the director stands and the contribution ordered will<br />

increase with the degree <strong>of</strong> culpability. By granting an order which is both punitive<br />

and compensatory on directors whose blameworthiness is high, directors are deterred<br />

from committing the reckless/wrongful trading. 185<br />

Commentators have expressed their reservations on culpability as a factor relevant<br />

for the purpose <strong>of</strong> determining the amount <strong>of</strong> the contribution. 186 Culpability is<br />

associated with intention and there is a possibility for the court to include a punitive<br />

element in making the award. This, critics argue, should not be so since the purpose<br />

<strong>of</strong> the section is compensatory and therefore only causation matters. Adrian Walters<br />

suggests that the court should not automatically award a nominal sum if the director<br />

lacks blameworthiness, instead it should be taken as a mitigating factor. 187 This can<br />

be seen in the decision <strong>of</strong> Re Produce Marketing Consortium (No 2) 188 when the<br />

court awarded the sum <strong>of</strong> ₤75,000 owing to the director‘s lack <strong>of</strong> culpability instead<br />

<strong>of</strong> the whole sum <strong>of</strong> ₤107,946 as claimed.<br />

In New Zealand, shareholders can also initiate a derivative action against a director<br />

for breach <strong>of</strong> sections 135 and 136, under section 165. <strong>The</strong> director‘s liability if it is<br />

brought as a derivative, will be higher than if it is brought under section 301. This is<br />

because section 301 confers discretion on the court and once the court has<br />

determined the link between the loss and the director‘s action, it would reduce the<br />

amount depending on the degree <strong>of</strong> culpability. 189 On the other hand, such discretion<br />

is absent in a shareholder‘s derivative action and the court would have to compensate<br />

the creditors based on the amount <strong>of</strong> the loss.<br />

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

186 Adrian Walters ―Enforcing Wrongful Trading - Substantive Problems and Practical Disincentives‖<br />

in Barry A K Rider (Ed.) <strong>The</strong> Corporate Dimension (Jordon Publishing Ltd, Bristol, 1998) 145 at<br />

152-153; Noonan and Watson above n117 at 41-42.<br />

187 Walters, ibid at 152.<br />

188 [1989] BCLC 520.<br />

189 Noonan and Watson above n117 at 42.<br />

352

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!