Introduction
About executive director and non-executive director at common law, statute law and fiduciary duty, Peter and Jane should be listed insurance companies. These duties include appropriate for the purpose of integrity, responsibility, in order to meet the company's best interests, and avoid conflict of interest.
Discuss the director duties of Peter and Jane.
Firstly, the meaning of a director should be a board member of a company who is appointed by the general meeting of the general assembly and is granted certain powers. The authority and responsibility are subject to the company's articles of association or contract. In Entwell’s Pty Ltd v National and General Insurance Co Ltd (1991) 5 ACSR 424, it stated that the role of a managing …show more content…
The court should consider two things to check the behaviours of the director is correct: on the one hand is the goal of directors, on the other hand is the impact of implementation. In this case. Discuss Peter and Jane whether to use power for proper purpose. If the power was been used for an improper purpose, both Peter and Jane were nonfeasance. Like Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 285 , the power was not being used to make company’s benefit growth. Using this test, the purpose of Peter and Jane are just overlooking purposely, Peter thought it is not necessary to pursue his report about flooding damage and signed off without verified. Although Jane was worried about the up-to-date figures on flooding damage, she agreed this report on the meeting because of the company’s financial position. Both Peter and Jane breached the goal and brought the adverse impact which means they breach the duty for proper …show more content…
Which means that the whole shareholders are integrated, the profit of corporation is the most important. In Gaiman v National Association for Mental Health [1971] Ch 317 , the best interests need according with the company whole profit that equated with the biggest interests of the whole shareholders. Generally no fiduciary relationship between directors and individual shareholders, as Percival v Wright [1902] 2 Ch 421 and Coleman v Myers [1977] 2 NZLR 225. Therefore, in this case, all shareholders in IPO accept and adopt the financial report which bring a substantial loss in 2016. More serious circumstances is that IPO’s share price plummets after the media revealed loss figures. As a result, Peter and Jane violated the section 182 of the responsibility to avoid conflicts of
About executive director and non-executive director at common law, statute law and fiduciary duty, Peter and Jane should be listed insurance companies. These duties include appropriate for the purpose of integrity, responsibility, in order to meet the company's best interests, and avoid conflict of interest.
Discuss the director duties of Peter and Jane.
Firstly, the meaning of a director should be a board member of a company who is appointed by the general meeting of the general assembly and is granted certain powers. The authority and responsibility are subject to the company's articles of association or contract. In Entwell’s Pty Ltd v National and General Insurance Co Ltd (1991) 5 ACSR 424, it stated that the role of a managing …show more content…
The court should consider two things to check the behaviours of the director is correct: on the one hand is the goal of directors, on the other hand is the impact of implementation. In this case. Discuss Peter and Jane whether to use power for proper purpose. If the power was been used for an improper purpose, both Peter and Jane were nonfeasance. Like Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 285 , the power was not being used to make company’s benefit growth. Using this test, the purpose of Peter and Jane are just overlooking purposely, Peter thought it is not necessary to pursue his report about flooding damage and signed off without verified. Although Jane was worried about the up-to-date figures on flooding damage, she agreed this report on the meeting because of the company’s financial position. Both Peter and Jane breached the goal and brought the adverse impact which means they breach the duty for proper …show more content…
Which means that the whole shareholders are integrated, the profit of corporation is the most important. In Gaiman v National Association for Mental Health [1971] Ch 317 , the best interests need according with the company whole profit that equated with the biggest interests of the whole shareholders. Generally no fiduciary relationship between directors and individual shareholders, as Percival v Wright [1902] 2 Ch 421 and Coleman v Myers [1977] 2 NZLR 225. Therefore, in this case, all shareholders in IPO accept and adopt the financial report which bring a substantial loss in 2016. More serious circumstances is that IPO’s share price plummets after the media revealed loss figures. As a result, Peter and Jane violated the section 182 of the responsibility to avoid conflicts of