A Brief Note On The And Contra Section 203d And 203e Of The Corporations Act

1722 Words Oct 11th, 2015 7 Pages
VI. Comparative law
According to the pro and contra Section 203D and 203E of the Corporations Act as above, most judges and scholars agree that the procedure of removal directors as stipulated in the Corporations Act provides fairness treatment for the directors who may be removed. However, they still strongly argue whether the Section 203D is mandatory or not. Moreover, they questioned the existence of Section 203E since it eliminates flexibility for companies to make decision particularly in the emergency situation as explained above. Therefore, in order to provide broader perspectives about the relevancy of Section 203D and Section 203E, it is necessary to compare the procedure of removal directors in the Australian legislation with the other laws from common law and civil law countries.

1. Common law
a. New Zealand
Company law in New Zealand is regulated in the Companies Act 1993 (NZ). It is stated that only natural persons can be appointed as directors of New Zealand companies. Moreover, the director of a company is vacated from its position if that person resigns, becomes disqualified from being a director, is removed from office in accordance with this Act or the constitution of the company, dies, or otherwise vacates office in accordance with the constitution of the company. A director becomes disqualified if that person falls to meet with this requirements:
• The person is under 18 years of age;
• The person is an undischarged bankrupt;
• The person is…

More about A Brief Note On The And Contra Section 203d And 203e Of The Corporations Act

Open Document