The court held that Mr Shafron is an officer under the section 9(b)(i) as he was closely involved in forming decisions, irrespective of being the ultimate decision maker. The Court stated that Mr Shafron was an employee and not an external advisor of the company (High court of Australia, 2012).
Arguments of the parties and analysis
Based on the section 180(1) of the act, the court stated that it is not possible that Mr Shafron could perform some duties as a company secretary and others as a general counsellor. The court further mentions that there is no evidence that Mr Shafron was preforming some few tasks as a company secretary and others as a general counsellor (High court of Australia, 2012). Moreover, the court argues that the duties …show more content…
Therefore, the court stated that under section 180(1)(b) of the Act, the actual duties of an actual officer is not just statutory (High court of Australia, 2012). In addition, the high court asserted that it was the responsibility of Mr Shafron to provide advice to the board regarding the ASX issue and the actuarial issue as well. The legal duties are to be met by Mr Shafron and even the cash flow modelling should be informed to the board by him (Lis Boyce & Macinnis, 2012). However, Mr Shafron argued that he relied upon the external lawyers to give advice to the board regarding the disclosure to ASX. Certainly, with reference to the actuarial issue, Mr Shafron claimed that he had lack of knowledge about the provisions for superimposed …show more content…
This indicates that Mr Shafron was an officer as per the declaration by the court (High court of Australia, 2012). However, the court dismissed the argument of Mr Shafron that an individual must be involved in decision making so that he can participate in making decision. The court announced that Mr Shafron and the board of directors accepted the decision of the separation proposal, which reflects that Mr Shafron was a part of this participation (High court of Australia, 2012). Thus, Mr Shafron was found guilty of the
Arguments of the parties and analysis
Based on the section 180(1) of the act, the court stated that it is not possible that Mr Shafron could perform some duties as a company secretary and others as a general counsellor. The court further mentions that there is no evidence that Mr Shafron was preforming some few tasks as a company secretary and others as a general counsellor (High court of Australia, 2012). Moreover, the court argues that the duties …show more content…
Therefore, the court stated that under section 180(1)(b) of the Act, the actual duties of an actual officer is not just statutory (High court of Australia, 2012). In addition, the high court asserted that it was the responsibility of Mr Shafron to provide advice to the board regarding the ASX issue and the actuarial issue as well. The legal duties are to be met by Mr Shafron and even the cash flow modelling should be informed to the board by him (Lis Boyce & Macinnis, 2012). However, Mr Shafron argued that he relied upon the external lawyers to give advice to the board regarding the disclosure to ASX. Certainly, with reference to the actuarial issue, Mr Shafron claimed that he had lack of knowledge about the provisions for superimposed …show more content…
This indicates that Mr Shafron was an officer as per the declaration by the court (High court of Australia, 2012). However, the court dismissed the argument of Mr Shafron that an individual must be involved in decision making so that he can participate in making decision. The court announced that Mr Shafron and the board of directors accepted the decision of the separation proposal, which reflects that Mr Shafron was a part of this participation (High court of Australia, 2012). Thus, Mr Shafron was found guilty of the