BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW 6 6 BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW Corporate Name of the University Author Note Issue

Running head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW
Corporation and Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW1
Issue
The issue arising from the situation is whether Peter has any remedies available in relation
to each of the three complaints made by Peter.
Rule
Any person who has been designated as a director or an officer of a company needs to
ensure his actions and discharge his powers to have been taken in a manner, which is diligent
and careful as per the provisions contained u/s 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
For the purpose of this section, the degree to which the care and diligence is required to be
exercised would be of the same extent as that of any person who has been placed in the same
position as well as same designation as that of the alleged (www5.austlii.edu.au, 2019). It has
been held in the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No
8) [2016] FCA 1023, that a director of a company or any other officer of the company is
required to ensure his actions as a director to be carried out with care and due diligence. Any
breach of the same would held the director liable for the breach of this section.
As per the provisions contained u/s 181 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), any director
or officer belonging to a company needs to ensure all its actions in relation to the authority as
a director to be beneficial for the company and to be taken for serving an appropriate purpose
of the company (www5.austlii.edu.au, 2019). It has been held in the case of Australian
Securities and Investments Commission v Healey & Ors [2001] FCA 717, that a director of a
company needs to ensure the actions of the director of a company needs to be in favour of the
company.

BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW2
Any individual appointed as a director or as an employee has been prohibited from
utilising his designation in the company for an improper purpose as per the provisions
contained u/s 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Such an individual has been restricted
from using his position as a director or officer of a company to serve his own interest
(www5.austlii.edu.au, 2019). Moreover, any officer or director of a company would be
prohibited to undertake any actions that have the probability of causing detriment to the
company. It has been held in the case of Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL that a
director of a company is not supposed to utilise his position as a director in the company to
serve his own interest causing detriment to the company.
As per the provisions contained u/s 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the courts
have been authorised to provide orders u/s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) if it has
been satisfied that there are certain conduct that has been made by the company or by any
individual acting under the name of the company causing or probable to cause detriment to
the company (www5.austlii.edu.au, 2019). Any actions of the company or actions taken
under the name of the company would be brought under the purview of this section if the
same appears to be oppressive, prejudicial in an unfair manner or causing discrimination
against any member or any class of members pertaining to the company.
As per the provisions u/s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the court has been
empowered to deliver any order that has been appropriate with respect to the company. The
court has discretionary power to wind the company up, alter or replace the constitution of the
company or regulate the future affairs of the company (www5.austlii.edu.au, 2019).
As per the provisions contained u/s 234 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the
application u/s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) can be made before the court by any
of the member of the company. The member may or may not be affected by the policy that