preview

The Reasons Of Non Compliance

Decent Essays

IV. The reasons of non-compliance
Due to the fact, the board dismissed Steven Sewell from CEO because his characteristics are not suitable with the characteristics of new board. This reason is very subjective and unreasonable. This paper would not examine the unreasonable reason from the board of FDC as above, but will observe the fact that the removal of a director by the board is not the first time happened. There are some previous cases which are similar to the FDC case in which directors were dismissed by the board, such as in the case of Allied Mining & Processing Ltd v Boldbow Pty Ltd (“Allied v Boldbow”), Central Exchange Ltd v Rivkin Financial Services Ltd (“Central v Rivkin”), and Scottish & Colonial Ltd v Australian Power & Gas Co & Ltd (“Scottish v Australian Power”). In those three cases, the decision by the judges is considerably different. In Allied v Boldbow and Central v Rivkin, the judges state that Section 203D does not replace any other power of removal possessed by the company. Therefore, a company could regulate in their constitution to dismiss a director without the need for a vote of shareholders (in defined circumstances). Conversely, in Scottish v Australian Power, the judges emphasise that Section 203D is mandatory, and therefore, the process of removal a director must follow Section 203D. Due to those cases, it is clear that there are pro and contra about the dismissal of a director as stipulated in the Section 203D. One side argues that

Get Access