Why The Directors Have Breached Their Duties

1404 Words6 Pages
Question 1
(a) Analyse whether the directors have breached their duties. Your answer should include reference to relevant cases and sections.
Issue: whether the directors have breached their duties. It is questionable that whether the directors breached their fiduciary duty towards the company by not putting first the interests of the company.

Relevant legal principles:
Re Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1964–1965] NSWR 1648
Corporations Act (ss 180–184 and 588G)
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 180
Percival v Wright [1902] 2 Ch 421
Hutton v West Cork Railway Co (1883) 23 Ch D 654
Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150
Furs Ltd v Tomkies (1936) 54 CLR 583
R v Byrnes and Hopwood (1995) 183 CLR 501
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler (No 3) (2002) 20 ACLC 576
Apply the relevant legal principles to the facts:
According to Re Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1964–1965] NSWR 1648, the directors of the company did not breach their fiduciary duties for the reason that their decision was not against the betterment of the company. In the case, two of directors are also shareholders in another computer hardware supplier, Zabriski Pty Limited. However, they favor a change in the hardware supplier to Zabriski Pty Limited does not necessarily have harm to the enterprise.
Directors’ and officers’ duties Corporations Act (ss 180–184 and 588G) states that a director or other officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties with the degree of

More about Why The Directors Have Breached Their Duties

Get Access