Detailed Case Report: Hannon v Doyle [2011] NSWSC 10 - Corporate Law

This case report analyzes the Hannon v Doyle [2011] NSWSC 10 case, which revolves around claims of minority oppression and breaches of director duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). David Hannon sought leave to initiate legal action on behalf of APH and APC, alleging that directors Doyle and Turner breached their duties through unsecured and interest-free loans, alienation of company options, excessive remuneration, and diversion of business opportunities to their own company, Pacific. The court examined the claims based on sections 181, 182, 232, and 237 of the Corporations Act, finding evidence of director breaches, particularly regarding conflicting interests, overcompensation, and the diversion of business opportunities. The court granted Hannon leave to proceed with the claim, recognizing a serious question of oppression and the potential breach of directors' duties, although specific decisions on the breaches were not made. The case highlights the importance of director's duties to act in the best interest of the company, especially concerning minority shareholders, and the consequences of failing to do so.

Business and Corporate Law
Hannon v Doyle [2011] NSWSC10
(Student Details: )
26-Sep-17

CASE REPORT 2
Introduction
The Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth) is a key piece of legislation which is applicable for all
the companies in Australia. This act acts as a governing act for the companies in the nation,
where each and every aspect of the functioning of the company is ruled by the act. So, from the
naming requirement of the company, to its type, from its incorporation to winding up, all such
and more provisions are provided under this act (Latimer, 2012). One of the key provisions of
this act relates to the director duties covered under Part 2D.1. When the duties laid down under
this section are contravened, a case is brought against the directors and they have to face relevant
penalties for such breach (Cassidy, 2006).
Hannon v Doyle [2011] NSWSC 10 is one of such cases where a breach of director duties
was claimed, and these were established by the court, but as they were not claimed upon, no
decision was made on these duty braches. This case revolved around the claims of minority
oppression and the resulting remedies from it (Wright, 2011). This report covers a detail of the
different aspects which surrounded this case to specifically highlight the duties breached in this
case.
Background
In this case, David Hannon had applied for leave so as to initiate legal action on behalf of
APH, i.e., Afro Pacific Holdings Pty Ltd and APC, i.e., Afro Pacific Capital Ltd, where APH
held 88% shares, based on section 237 of the Corporations Act. As he had been a former director
and the member of these companies, he made a claim pursuant to section 236(2)(a)(i) and section
236(2)(a)(ii) and left the court to decide upon whether the criteria covered under section 237 of

CASE REPORT 3
this act was fulfilled. It was argued in the matter of serious question by Hannon that unsecured
loans were made by APC to Doyle and Turner and some of these loans were interest free. He
also claimed that the 15 million options which APC held in TFC, i.e., Transvaal Ferro Chrome
Ltd had been “alienated” to the two companies which were owned by the two directors of APC,
i.e., by Doyle and Turner, along with the options of the company being sold at a price which was
below the market value. He also highlighted that Doyle and Turner were provided with excessive
remuneration by APC (Wright, 2011).
A noteworthy point raised by Hannon was that APC had lent some money to Africa
Pacific Capital Pty Ltd, herein referred to as Pacific, which was a company formed and owned
by Turner and Doyle. Further, Turner and Doyle made Pacific supply certain services to such
companies which were the existing clients of APC, and where the services’ procurement was
based. There had also been diversion or transfer of assets to Pacific, and these assets were such
to which APC had been entitled. Lastly, Hannon highlighted that no dividend had been paid by
APC even when there was amiability of profits, where the dividends could have been paid
prudentially. And this gave rise to a claim to be made under section 232 of this act for the
oppressive conduct of affairs (Wright, 2011).
Duties Breached
Under the Corporations Act, the directors of the company have been imparted with
certain duties. One of the reasons for imparting these duties on directors is that the minority
shareholders of the company are to be protected from oppressive conduct and where such is
done, the remedies have to be awarded to the minority shareholders (Paolini, 2014). Under
section 181 of this act, the directors have been given the duty to make use of their powers and to

CASE REPORT 4
undertake their obligation for such a purpose which can be deemed as fair, which is not only
undertaken in good faith but also for the best interest of the company (Australasian Legal
Information Institute, 2017). A duty has been placed on the directors through section 182 for to
not using their position of the company for their own, or for someone else’s benefits, particularly
when a detriment is caused to the company (WIPO, 2015).
In case the provisions covered under these sections are contravened, a civil penalty is
applied on the breaching party which is covered under section 1317E of the Corporations Act
(Federal Register of Legislation, 2017). Based on this section, the court can make a declaration
of contravention and this further gives the option to ASIC to either seek pecuniary penalties
based on section 1317G or apply for disqualification order based on section 206C. Based on the
duty covered under section 181, is the duty to work in the interest of the different stakeholders of
the company (ICNL, 2017).
The directors’ duty is enhanced when it comes to minority shareholders as these
shareholders do not hold the ability of influencing the company affairs due to their “minority”
status. So, the directors need to take special care of the shareholders and ensure that the decisions
are taken in a manner which denotes the best interest of not only the company but also of its
shareholders. Where a director fails in doing so, not only the statutory obligations are
contravened, but also claim can be made against them pursuant to section 232 and 232 of this act
(Easton, 2013).
The claims of Hannon were made for granting leave to the member of company based on
section 236(2)(a)(i) as per which he was satisfied that:

CASE REPORT 5
Based on section 237(2)(a) of this act, it is a possibility that the proceedings would not be
brought by the company;
Based on section 237(2)(b) that the applicant had been acting in good faith;
Based on section 237(2)(c) that it was in the company’s best interest to grant the leave to
the applicant; and
Based on section 237(2)(d) that a serious question had to be tried (Wright, 2011).
These points raised by Hannon showed that the directors of the company, i.e., Doyle and
Taylor had breached their director duties by not working in the best interest of the company and
taking advantage of their position in the company. This is evidence from Doyle and Turner were
being overcompensated by the company for the financial year which ended on Feb 29th, 2008 by
being paid $1,566,960 and $1,570,234 respectively as consulting fees, which was a sum higher
than the reasonable fees in such situations. Further, these sections were again breached when
they benefited their own company, Pacific instead of APC and even caused detriment to APC for
benefiting Pacific (Wright, 2011).
The court also analysed the use of business opportunity of the director where the business
opportunity of one company was taken by another company which had been formed by such
director. This diversion was seen as a breach of the fiduciary duties which were owed by the
company and also a breach of the statutory duties. However, as these breaches were not claimed
by Hannon, a decision was not made on the contravention of these duties. Instead, the court
stated that in the best interest of APH, a claim of breach of director duties should be brought
against the directors of the company on behalf of Hannon (Wright, 2011).

CASE REPORT 6
Decision of the Case
Each of the issues which were raised by Hannon was separately considered by the judges
in this case. With regards to the point raised for the loan, no contention had been made regarding
the loans being made. It was noted by the judges that each of the loans was made to either the
director or to the entity which was related to the directors. This was seen as a contravention of
the fundamental principles as were stated under the case of Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie
(1854) 1 Macq HL 461. In this case it had been stated that none of the agent of the company
could enter into arrangements where a conflicting interest is present, particularly with the
interests of such individuals who could be in conflict. This was necessary so that a contract
cannot be claimed as being fair or unfair later on. And so, the judges were satisfied that the
claims made under section 237(2)(c) and section 237(2)(d) had been rightly claimed (New South
Wales Caselaw, 2011).
When it came to the options claim regrading TFC, the same reasoning was applied by the
judges. It was noted by the judges that it was of not relevant if the options were sold at a price
which was lower than the market value based on the "no question is allowed to be raised as to the
fairness or unfairness" of the particular contract. And so, the claims made based on the two
sections were also satisfied. The court also addressed the claims regarding the overcompensation
of Doyle and Turner and stated that indeed the consulting fees were higher than the reasonable
fees. And on this basis, again the two subsections were satisfied (New South Wales Caselaw,
2011).
In the matter of the last claim regarding the major claims in reference to Pacific, it was
noted by the judges that a letterhead was deliberately designed adopted by Pacific which was
deceivingly similar to that of APC and there were several misrepresentations made on their

CASE REPORT 7
website which resulted in an impression being created that APC and Pacific were the same
business. Further, Pacific had informed the bankers that the income was received by them from
the sale of shares where these shares belong to APC and not to Pacific. Lastly, in this matter, the
judges also noted that Pacific and APC operated as one and so they had to be considered as one.
Hence, it was concluded by the judges that a serious question indeed had to be tried in this case
(New South Wales Caselaw, 2011).
It was held by the judges that a serious question was present in this case regarding the
claim of oppression made by Hannon which was related to the non-payment of the dividend.
However, it was held that the absence of the dividends could not be deemed as sufficient for
fulfilling claims under section 232 and that these claims had to be assessed after considering all
of the relevant circumstances. In the case at hand, there was a lack of dividends which "may
properly be made part of the matrix" of the claims made under section 232, in addition to the
particular claims regarding the breach of duty. In the end, it was held by the judges that in this
case, section 237(2)(a) and section 237(2) (b) had been clearly fulfilled. And so, it was
concluded by the judges that Hannon actually and honestly believed that a good cause of action
was present due to the evidence which had been put forward by Hannon, along with the efforts
which he had put into for pursing the claims which were made under this section and the findings
with regards to the serious question being present. Lastly, they stated that all these claims made
by Hannon were indeed in the best interest of the company (New South Wales Caselaw, 2011).
Conclusion
In the preceding sections, the case of Hannon v Doyle was discussed, which acts as a key
example for a claim being raised by the member of the company on behalf of the company, when

CASE REPORT 8
the company fails to do so itself, as a result of the directors being involved in activities which
were not in the best interest of the company. This claim saw a leave appeal being made by
Hannon where the judges took into consideration the presence of serious question so as to allow
this claim. The claims raised by Hannon were allowed in this case due to the questionable loans
made by the directors, the alienation of the share options to the companies of the directors, the
provisions whereby excessive remuneration was being provided to the directors, the diversion of
business of the company to another company which was owned by the directors and by being
engaged in oppressive conduct, which satisfied the criteria laid down under the different sections
of the Corporations Act. The director duties were breached in this case by Doyle and Taylor on
several grounds but owing to the absence of a claim being raised in this regard, a claim of breach
of directors’ duty could not be allowed by the court.

CASE REPORT 9
References
Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2017). Corporations Act 2001. Retrieved from:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/
Cassidy, J. (2006). Concise Corporations Law (5th ed.). NSW: The Federation Press.
Easton, M. (2013). Don’t forget minority shareholders. [Retrieved from
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2009/342.html?
context=1;query=Nassar%20v%20Innovative%20Precasters%20Group%20Pty%20Ltd
Federal Register of Legislation. (2017). Corporations Act 2001. Retrieved from:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00605
ICNL. (2017). Corporations Act 2001. Retrieved from:
http://www.icnl.org/research/library/files/Australia/Corps2001Vol4WD02.pdf
Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law 2012 (31st ed.). Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia
Limited.
New South Wales Caselaw. (2011). Hannon v Doyle [2011] NSWSC 10. Retrieved from:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54a634483004de94513d82c7
Paolini, A. (2014). Research Handbook on Directors Duties. Northampton, MA, USA: Edward
Elgar.
WIPO. (2015). Corporations Act 2001. Retrieved from:
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=370817

CASE REPORT 10
Wright, G. (2011). 5.13 Granting of leave to bring derivative proceedings under section 237 of
the Corporations Act. Retrieved from: http://www.glenwright.net/files/Granting%20of
%20leave%20to%20bring%20proceedings%20under%20the%20Corporations%20Act
%202001,%20section%20237.pdf