Case Analysis : V. Gulliver & Others

1762 Words8 Pages
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 There are a number of ways in which directors may make profits from their position held in the company, whether intentionally or unintentionally. If they make use of knowledge which they have acquired as directors of the company and use their positions as directors to obtain the profit then the rule applies and they will be held liable to the company for making use of such profit for personal use unless of course they acted with the knowledge and consent of the company. It makes no difference that they acted in good faith and were not in any way guilty of fraud. As stated by Lord Russell of Killowen in Regal (Hustings) Ltd. v. Gulliver & Others. Peter has been sharing information with a rival company for…show more content…
It may be critical to decide the outcome of the case based on the concept of ‘Fraudulent Purpose’ as a fact to decide, or may have been given specific content as a matter of legal definition. In this case the accused Peter may have believed to have acted in the way which may have been right according to him, however the defence of the claim of right or wrong cannot be applied. The question that arises is whether the act conducted was dishonest or not and the act of good faith no where comes in picture. To conclude one can say that the nature of criminal liability for corporate fraud have been transformed over the years in many ways. The major question that arises is whether the law’s change over the years can be matched by adequate enforcement as to achieve a change in the Corporate World. Question 4 Ken as a director of Life Boost Pty ltd may bring a claim for oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act. Oppression Ken should rely upon s 232(a) and argue that the operations of the Life Boost Pty Ltd are being held in such a manner that may be deemed oppressive against him as a shareholder and a director. Ken, may point out the instances where it was clearly shown that he was oppressed by the remaining members of the company.  Refusal to buy him out by the other members.  Refusal of access to the company’s financial statements. (See Shum Yip Properties Development Ltd v Chatswood
Open Document