Corporate Law Assignment

Corporate Law Assignment

Table of Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................3
Relevant Law...................................................................................................................................3
Applicability of law in given case...................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

ISSUE
In this case, there are two issues which are as follows –
 The issue is related with whether director has breached his duty of care.
 Another issue is related with breach of conflict by director.
RELEVANT LAW
Every director of company possesses some responsibilities towards organization. According to
section 180 of Corporation Act 2001, it is required by the director to carry their activities by
considering the degree of care and diligence which is normally expected by a rational individual
(Australian Institute of Company Director, 2016). Further, common law also suggests the similar
obligation by director of company (Attenborough, 2019). In the case of ASIC v Padbury, court
held that director of the company approved that announcement made by ASX related with
project that are deceptive and misleading, and probably harmful fir company. In addition to this,
according to section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001, a director is required to act for a particular
objective and in a best interest of organization. Further, they should not engage in any activity
which assists in arising of conflict of interest (Boatright, 2015). It is the fiduciary duty which is
implemented by the common law of the country. In the legal case of Percival v Wright, court
held that director owe fiduciary duty towards company. Section 182 of the Corporation Act
requires that director should not use their position in an improper manner. Moreover, according
to section 183 of the company, any information obtained by director during their duties of
director, they should not misuse that information for their own benefits or for some other person
or against to the company (Moll, 2018).