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.

was the director. <strong>The</strong> bank filed a writ against Lorraine for breach <strong>of</strong> fiduciary duty<br />

and at the same time applied for a Mareva injunction against Aspatra, a company<br />

which was effective or solely controlled by Lorraine, to prevent the company from<br />

dissipating its assets. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court held that justice required the court to lift<br />

the corporate veil and was not prepared to interfere in the finding <strong>of</strong> the trial judge<br />

that Lorraine was the alter ego <strong>of</strong> Aspatra. Hence, the decision to grant a mareva<br />

injunction was upheld.<br />

It is important for the creditor to show that the company will dissipate its assets and<br />

the court has to decide, on a balance <strong>of</strong> convenience, whether the order should be<br />

granted. However, if the company goes into liquidation after the order has been<br />

granted, the assets subject to the order will form part <strong>of</strong> the general funds. <strong>The</strong><br />

creditor, therefore, will receive his or her payment according to the rule <strong>of</strong><br />

distribution. In addition, unsecured creditors will take the assets subject to the right<br />

<strong>of</strong> any debenture holders. 346 This fact may deter some creditors from applying for a<br />

Mareva injunction since they have to bear the costs <strong>of</strong> proceedings while any benefit<br />

reaped from it will be shared with others.<br />

Creditors may also face difficulties in finding evidence to support a claim that the<br />

company is dissipating its assets to their detriment. 347 In order to find such evidence,<br />

creditors need to know how the company is managed, information which they are not<br />

privy to. Further, creditors have to closely monitor the company in order to obtain<br />

such information and most creditors are unwilling to do so because it is not cost<br />

effective.<br />

11.5.2 Misfeasance<br />

A liquidator who wishes to bring an action against a director for breach <strong>of</strong> duty in<br />

relation to the company may also seek to use the misfeasance proceeding provided<br />

346 Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management Ltd [1978] 1 W.L.R 966.<br />

347 See Lord Denning M.R in Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine S.A [1979] Q.B 645<br />

at 669.<br />

394

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!