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.

<strong>of</strong> misfeasance summonses. 209 <strong>The</strong> decision based on misfeasance is thought by<br />

critics to be misplaced because the right <strong>of</strong> action does not solely arise in insolvency<br />

compared to wrongful trading which specifically arises when the company is wound<br />

up.<br />

Further, a misfeasance action is taken against directors or others in various<br />

circumstances amounting to breach <strong>of</strong> duty, while wrongful trading provides for an<br />

action for failure to take steps to minimize loss to creditors. <strong>The</strong> wording <strong>of</strong> section<br />

214(1) is said to resemble preferences provisions rather than misfeasance, and it<br />

would be appropriate to adopt its position into wrongful trading. Moreover, the<br />

general defences for misfeasance actions in section 1157 Companies Act 2006 are<br />

not applicable to wrongful trading which has its own defence in section 214(4)<br />

Insolvency Act 1986. 210<br />

<strong>The</strong> matter was settled in Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd (in liq), Ward v<br />

Aitken and Others, 211 when the Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal stated that the fruits <strong>of</strong> wrongful<br />

trading were to be available to unsecured creditors. <strong>The</strong> court made a distinction<br />

between the property <strong>of</strong> the company at the time <strong>of</strong> the commencement <strong>of</strong> the<br />

liquidation, and assets which arise after liquidation which are recoverable by a<br />

liquidator pursuant to the power conferred on him or her. <strong>The</strong>refore, fruits <strong>of</strong> action<br />

from misfeasance will be available to a debenture holder because the right under<br />

section 212(misfeasance) existed prior to the winding up <strong>of</strong> the company, and the<br />

liquidator enforces such right on behalf <strong>of</strong> the company. In contrast, proceeds from<br />

fraudulent and wrongful trading are not part <strong>of</strong> the assets <strong>of</strong> the company and thus<br />

could not be subjected to a charge. 212<br />

209 Hicks, ibid.<br />

210 Re DKG Contractors Ltd [1990] BCC 903.<br />

211 [1997] 1 BCLC 689 at 698-699.<br />

212 Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd (in liq), Ward v Aitken and Others[1997] 1 BCLC 689 at<br />

698-699.<br />

358

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!