This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Business Associations 1 Notes

Director’s Duty Of Care Notes

Updated Director’s Duty Of Care Notes

Business Associations 1 Notes

Business Associations 1

Approximately 387 pages

A 243 page bible of cases and materials summaries. Includes all extra cases discussed in 2011 (e.g. ASIC v Adler) and super summaries intended for quick reference in an open book exam. Structure of cases and materials summaries is as follows:

Class 1 - Introduction to 'The Corporation' and incorporating under Australian Law
Class 2 - Separate Legal Personality
Class 3 - Implications of Limited Liability
Class 4 - The Corporate Constitution and Decision Making by the Board of Directors
Clas...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Business Associations 1 Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Class 10 – Director’s Duty of Care

S 180; s189-90; 198D

Part 2D.1; Division 1 – General Duties

180 – Care and diligence – civil obligation only

Care and diligence – directors and other officers

  1. A director or other officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they

    1. Were a director or officer of a corporation in the corporation’s circumstances; and

    2. Occupied the officer held by, and had the same responsibilities within the corporation as, the director or officer

Business Judgment Rule

  1. A director or other officer of a corporation who makes a business judgment is taken to meet the requirements of (1) and their equivalent common law/equitable duties, in respect of judgment if they:

    1. Make the judgment in good faith for a proper purpose; and

    2. Do not have a material personal interest in the subject matter of the judgment; and

    3. Inform themselves about the subject matter of the judgment to the extent they reasonably believe to be appropriate; and

    4. Rationally believe that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation

The director’s or officer’s belief that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation is a rational one unless the belief is one that no reasonable person in their position would hold

  1. [Business judgment defined] In this section; business judgment means any decision to take or not take action in respect of a matter relevant to the business operations of the corporation

189 – Reliance on information or advice provided by others

If:

  1. A director relies on information, or professional/expert advice, given or prepared by

    1. An employee of the corporation who he/she believes on reasonable grounds to be reliable and competent in relation to the matter’s concerned

    2. A professional adviser/expert IRT matters the directors believes on RG to be within that person’s competence

    3. Another director or officer IRT matters within the director’s or officer’s authority; or

    4. A committee of directors on which the director did not serve IRT matters within the committee’s authority

  2. The reliance was made

    1. In good faith; and

    2. After making an independent assessment of the information or advice, having regard to the director’s knowledge of the corporation and the complexity of the structure and operations of the corporations

  3. The reasonableness of the director’s reliance on the information/advice arises in proceedings brought to determine whether the director has performed a duty under this Part or an equivalent general law duty

The director’s reliance on the information is taken to be reasonable unless the contrary is proved


190 – Responsibility for actions of delegate

  1. [Director responsible for actions of delegate] If directors delegate power under s 198D, a director is responsible for the exercise of the power by the delegate as if the power had been exercised by the directors themselves

  2. [Where director not responsible] A director isn’t responsible under (1) if

    1. They believed on RG at all times that the delegate would exercise the power in conformity with the duties imposed on directors of the company by this Act and the company’s constitution (if any); and

    2. The director believed

      1. On RG; and

      2. In good faith; and

      3. After making proper inquiry if the circumstances indicated the need for inquiry

That the delegate was reliable and competent IRT the power delegated

198D – Delegation

  1. [Delegation of powers] Unless the company’s constitution provides otherwise, the directors of a company may delegate any of their powers to:

    1. A committee of directors or

    2. A director; or

    3. An employee of the company; or

    4. Any other person

  2. [How powers are exercised] The delegate must exercise the powers delegated in accordance with director’s directions

  3. [Effect of delegated powers] The exercise of the power by the delegate is as effective as if the directors exercised it

Duties of Care

[7.70] An overview of duties and remedies

There are three primary species of legal rules directed towards shirking:

  1. An imposition of a duty on directors and senior officers to apply reasonable care in performance of office at both equity (as an incident of the office) and tort (breach of duty) – but this duty is not fiduciary

  2. The complementary statutory duty of care and diligence s 180(1) which attracts civil penalty provisions (Pt 9.4B) in addition to other general law/statutory remedies. There is also a business judgment safe-haven provision in s 180(2) (complemented by s 189)

  3. Specific obligations on directors to prevent insolvent trading

  • The remedies for breach of these duties are damages to put the company back in the position it would have been had the breach not occurred

    • But if the case is one of the exceptional ones that amount to a breach of statutory duties, it would be remediable by orders affecting the actual decision taken

  • The duties are distinct but have oberlapping remedies

[7.70] The general law duty of care

  • At general law directors owe a duty to their company to take reasonable care in performing the functions of their office, the standard of care “measured by the care that an ordinary man might be expected to take in the circumstances upon his own behalf” (Re Brazilian Plantations), having regard to his knowledge and experience (Re Brazilian Plantations)

    • Various developments have been made at the turn of the 21st century (with a great deal of inactivity beforehand) with the Daniels v Anderson decision – a statutory presumption of reasonableness was enacted where directors rely on information/advice provided by certain people (s 189) and where directors delegate powers

      • Note: Since the director is only responsible for the acts of the delegate within the power as delegated, if the delegate acts fraudulently, negligently or otherwise outside the scope of the delegation, then the director escapes responsibility

  • The fact that the director participates in conduct carrying...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Business Associations 1 Notes.