Corporation Act 2001: Director Duties, Defenses, and Case Analysis

This report analyzes the Corporation Act 2001, specifically focusing on the definition and responsibilities of a director, including de facto and shadow directors, as defined in Section 9. It examines the duties of care, skill, and diligence as outlined in Section 180(1), referencing the case of Daniels v Anderson (1995) to illustrate the application of objective tests for breaches of duty. The report further explores available defenses, such as the business judgment rule under Section 180(2), and the reliance on expert advice as per Section 189, and delegation of powers under Section 190. Part B of the report delves into the application of the business judgment rule, and its conditions. The report also discusses the execution of documents according to Section 127, and relevant case law such as Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964], to understand the liabilities of a company. The report provides an overview of the legal framework governing director's duties, liabilities, and potential defenses within the corporate law context.

Running head: CORPORATION ACT
Corporation Act
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CORPORATION ACT
Task A:
Issue:
The definition of a director is contained in the provisions of Section 9 of the Corporation
Act 2001. Under the Act, a director has been defined as a person who may or may not be elected
as the director of a company, if such person has been acting as a de facto director while
discharging the duties of the main director. It is worthwhile to refer here that, a person who is
authorized to act on behalf of a director shall be liable to perform all the duties associated with
such director however; such a person shall not be appointed as the formal director of the
company. It is noteworthy to mention here that, according to the provisions of Section 9 of the
Corporation Act 2001, that sometimes directors of a company acts according to the instructions
authorized by a shadow director. A shadow director is a person who does not reveal himself as
the director however; such a person is involved in the process of decision making on behalf of
the company. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that a shadow director are authorized to
influence the majority of the shareholders present in the company and even involves himself in
the decision of the company. However, it is worth noting that a shadow director shall not be able
to involve himself in all the decisions taken for the benefit of the company.
According to the provisions of Section 9, the person may be appointed for the position of
a director who may act as an alternative director. The alternative director may not be selected
through proper appointment. The duties of a director is concerned with the protection of the
shareholders from the risks would may harm the company. In this regard, it is worthwhile to
define the officer of a corporation which would include the executives of a company holding
senior positions. However, such a person shares the same characteristics to that of a shadow

2CORPORATION ACT
director. In ASIC v Adler (2002), it was observed that, Adler was the director as well as the
officer of the HIH subsidiary. In this case, it was observed that as Adler was authorized as the
director of the company and the officer of the subsidiary holding company therefore, he actively
participated in the process of decision making which affected the substantial or whole part of the
business.
Therefore, in the present scenario, it can be stated that Lana has not been properly
appointed as the director of the company however; she was authorized to act as the director and
attend board meetings for the purpose of assisting the other directors in making decisions.
Rules:
According to the provisions of Section 180(1) of the Corporation Act 2001, it is
important on the part of the directors and the other officers of the company to exercise their
duties and discharge them with due diligence and care. According to the provisions of Section
180(1) (a), the directors or the other officers of the company shall have the same duties and
responsibilities as shared by the directors under the provisions of Section 180 (1) (b) of the
Corporation Act 2001. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case of Daniels v Anderson
(1995) 37 NSWLR 438, which clarifies the fact that, same standard of duty of care, has been
imposed upon the executive and non-executive directors of the company. Therefore, it can be
rightly mentioned that, executive directors can be considered as the full time directors of a
company who involve themselves in the day to day business activities. In relation to their day to
day responsibilities, these directors are entrusted with special responsibilities as they possess
appropriate knowledge regarding the day to day operations of the company. However, non-
executive directors are entrusted with part time duties but still they are involved in the regular

3CORPORATION ACT
business activities. Under the provisions of Section 180(1) of the Corporation Act, there is a duty
of care, skill and diligence on the part of the directors. However, traditionally, the Courts
determined such duty and care on the part of the directors by keeping in mind the intention of the
directors while they were making a decision on behalf of the company. After the decision of the
case Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438, the Courts applied the objective test for the
purpose of determining the breach of duty on the part of the directors. In this regard, the
provision of Section 180(1) requires that all the directors as well as the officers of the company
must carry on their duties with care and due diligence. The Courts while deciding that whether
the directors have acted according to care and diligence would be measured in terms of degree of
reasonability. The degree of reasonability deals with the fact that whether the director has
exercised his duties and responsibilities as it would have been carried out by any reasonable man
of prudent nature. The Courts have also applied the subjective test for the purpose of taking into
consideration specific circumstances in which the individual directors or the officers has acted
for the purpose of making decisions for the company.
Therefore, in the given case study, it can be observed that, Rik being the director of the
company took the decision in the board meeting regarding the shifting of premises. The decision
was taken on the part of Rik without even informing Patel and Lana who were also the directors
of the company. In this regard, Rik do not act according to the provisions of Section 180(1).
Therefore, Rik being a director of the company has not taken due care, skill and diligence in
regard to the shifting of the business premises.
Defenses:

4CORPORATION ACT
The defenses which are available in the present case can be explained with the
application of the provisions of Section 180(2), Section 189 and 190 of the Corporation Act
2001. According to the provisions of Section 180(2) of the Corporation Act 2001, any director of
a company or other officers who is involved in making business judgment shall not be held liable
according to the rules and regulations under both common and statutory law. The best judgment
rule is defined as the decisions which the directors of a company are authorized to take for the
purpose of carrying on the business operations. In the case of ASIC v Rich (2003), it was held by
the Court that the officers of the company may be entrusted with certain power and
responsibilities however; the authorization of certain powers and responsibilities shall be
considered while determining the fact that whether the directors have applied duty of care, skill
and diligence while making the best judgment rule.
It is worthwhile to refer here that, from the very beginning; the best judgment rule has
been protecting the directors from personal liability in relation to the judgments made for the
purpose of business. However, such business judgment has to be valid and has been made in
good faith for the best interests of the company. In some cases, it can be observed that the
directors with an intention of making the business profitable by acting honestly and rationally,
often lands up taking decisions which causes loss to the business of the company. In this regard,
the case of ASIC v Adler (2002) can be referred because in this case, it was observed that the
directors Adler, Fodera and Williams has breached their statutory duties according to the
provisions of Section 180(1). However, they could not escape personal liability by relying upon
the provisions of Section 180(2) because Adler could not satisfy the provisions of this section
while making the business judgment rule. Secondly, there was conflict of interest in the decision
taken by Adler regarding the investment. The business judgment rule did not apply in the case of

5CORPORATION ACT
Williams because he failed to comply with the correct safeguards however; he also failed in his
part to provide reasonable evidence that the business judgment was done in good faith.
According to the provisions of Section 189 of the Corporation Act, if the director of a
company relies upon the information and advice on the part of a professional or expert that has
been prepared by an employee, another director, an expert advisor of the Corporation in reliance
to the fact that such information would be reliable and made in good faith, then such director of
the company shall not be held personally liable for the best judgment. According to the
provisions of Section 190 of the Corporation Act 2001, the directors of a company are
responsible for the delegation of powers if the power delegated has been exercised by them. In
this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that, if such director believes that the delegation of
power has been on reasonable grounds and has been made in good faith by proper inquiry, then
such delegation of power can be considered to be reliable.
Therefore, in the present scenario, it can be stated that the directors of the company can
escape personal liability for breach of their duties on the defense of best judgment rule. This is
due to the reason that, Rik has taken the decision for the purpose of prospering the business and
such decision was taken in good faith.
Part B:
The defenses of business judgment rule which are available to the directors of a company
for the purpose of defending a claim for breach of duty of care and diligence in the process of
making decision on the behalf of the company can be emphasized as-
1) The decision must have been made in good faith and for proper purpose.
2) The directors should not have personal interest related to such decision.

6CORPORATION ACT
3) The director rationally believed that such decision shall be for the best interest of the
company.
In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the provisions of Section 127 of the Corporation Act
2001. According to the provisions of Section 127(1), a document may be executed on the part of
the company with the common seal. However, such document needs to be signed by 2 directors
of a company or by the director or the secretary or by the proprietary or the sole director of a
company. In this context, it is worth noting that, if a document has been executed by the
company in such manner, then the assumptions depicted under sub-section 129(5) shall be relied
upon. According to the provisions of Section 127(2), a company is authorized to execute a
document with the help of a common seal, if the fixing of such common seal has been witnessed
by any 2 directors of the company or the secretary of the company and the director or the sole in
case of a proprietary company. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that, for the purpose of
executing the document in such manner, the assumptions of sub-section 129(6) shall be relied
upon.
In the case of Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2
QB 480, it was observed that one of the directors of the defendant company has been allowed to
act as the Managing director on behalf of the company. However, it was observed that such
Managing director was not formally appointed. The other directors of the company was aware of
the fact that though the Managing director was authorized to take decisions on behalf of the
company, he acted outside his actual authority and as a result of which the company held liable.
In this regard, it was held by the Court that, as the principal (company) authorized the agent
(Managing director) to act on behalf of the company. Therefore, the company shall be held liable
for his acts.

7CORPORATION ACT
In the present case study, it can be stated that the company shall not be liable for the acts of
Rik regarding signing the lease contract. This is due to the reason that, the contract has been
signed in the name of Rik rather than the company.
The assumptions made by third parties in order to deal with the directors of the company can
be emphasized. According to the provisions of Section 129 of the Corporation Act, it may be
assumed by any reasonable person that the provisions of this act that can be applied to a
company can be complied with the rules regarding the director or company secretary or officer
or agent or proper performance of duties on the part of the director or document duly executed
with or without seal. According to the provisions of Section 129(5), it may be assumed by any
reasonable person in case of document that has been duly executed by the company. In such
cases, the document has to be signed according to the provisions mentioned in Section 127(1).
According to the provisions of Section 128(3), such assumptions can be made in cases where
an officer or any agent of the company has involved in fraudulent act or has forged a document
in relation to business dealings. According to the provisions of Section 128(4), a person is not
authorized to make assumption under the provisions of Section 129, if at the time of making the
dealing such person was aware of the fact or has suspected that it was an incorrect assumption.
In the present scenario, it can be observed that Rik signed the contract without prior consent
from the other directors. Therefore, in this case, the defenses of business judgment rule can be
applied. It can be rightly stated that, the business judgment rule can safeguard the directors from
personal liability if it can be proved that such director was acting in good faith, had no personal
interest behind such decision and made the decision for the best interests of the company. In the
present case, Rik being a director can escape liability on the ground that he decided to move to

8CORPORATION ACT
new premises for the purpose of prospering the business of the company. In the present case, it
can be observed that Rik while making the decision on behalf of the company has not complied
with the provisions of Section 127(1) because it states that in order to produce a valid document;
it has to be signed by 2 directors which Rik has not done. In this regard, it can also be observed
that, the document was not prepared by using the common seal which has not been witnessed by
2 directors i.e. Patel and Lana. In the present scenario, it can be observed that, the assumptions
contained in Section 129(5) and 129(6) have not been relied. Therefore, in this context, it can be
stated that the company Fruut Pty. Ltd. cannot be forced to keep leasing the new premises for a
term of three years because, the lease contract is not valid as it did not met the abovementioned
provisions and as it has been only signed by Rik alone.

9CORPORATION ACT
References:
ASIC v Adler (2002).
ASIC v Rich (2003).
Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438.
Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480.