Business Law Report: Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission [1993] 9 WAR 395 case, focusing on the duties of directors and their responsibilities under Australian business law. The report examines the legal principles of negligence and due care as they apply to corporate governance, particularly concerning non-executive directors. It delves into the court's decision, highlighting the balance between foreseeable risks and potential benefits in business operations. The analysis includes a discussion of the duties violated by the director, referencing relevant sections of the Corporations Act, and the potential penalties for such breaches. Furthermore, the report explores the future implications of this case within the Australian legal system, touching upon subsequent cases that have applied the principles established in Vrisakis, such as ASIC v Cassimatis and Re Connective Services Pty Ltd. The report underscores the significance of the case in shaping corporate law, particularly concerning the standard of care expected from directors and the circumstances under which they may be excused from liability.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Case introduction.............................................................................................................................2
The duties violated by the directors in this case..............................................................................4
Analysis of the decision which have been provided by the court in relation to this case...............5
Future implications of the case in relation to the Australian legal system......................................6
References........................................................................................................................................8

2BUSINESS LAW
Case introduction
In the case of Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission [1993] 9 WAR 395 the
question before the court was to determine whether the director involved in relation to the
operations of the company has been able to live up to the expectations which is imposed on the
directors while they discharge. When this case had been decided the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth)
has not been in enacted therefore statutory duties in relation to which a director must function
with respect to an organisation was not applicable. However in this case the duty which the
directors needed to comply with and which the court has to analyse was the mirror image of the
duty provided in section 180(1) of the act. This duty was in relation to the observance of a degree
of due care and diligence while operating on behalf of the company. In this case it had been
provided by the court that the direction and management of the organisation consists of making
decisions and working upon actions which may bring much promise on one hand however on the
same time they are fraught with risk on the other hand. This system is inherent in the life cycle of
Commerce and industry. In this case a non executive director was assumed to have significant
responsibilities in relation to the operations of the company. This is because he had significant
experience in commercial matters along with the specialised knowledge ability and skill which is
required to manipulate or influence the company's affairs which have been conducted previously
in a way which can be considered as totally inappropriate. The director in this case was expected
to take into account or more intense analysis and evaluation in relation to the affairs of the
company. In this context Ipp J had held at the director has to be excused from any form of
liability as if it is not done it would be discouragement towards the expected entrepreneurship
from non executive directors like him.

3BUSINESS LAW
In addition it has been stated by him that the process of balancing foreseeable risk in
relation to harm which may arise against the potential benefits which may have been expected
reasonably to arise in relation to the organisation from the conduct of the directors in this case. In
addition in this case both Malcolm CJ and Ipp J had agreed upon the fact that Where are non
executive director holds considerable knowledge and experience as well as influencing power,
while analysing his actions they need to be compared to a standard of an executive director. In
addition it has been held by the judge in this case that the statutory duty in relation to diligence
and care would be breached in case the director in context have failed to exercise reasonable
extent of diligence and care while exercising his power and discharging his obligations towards
organisation. In addition this duty exists or is violated even in situation where the organisation
has not faced any actual damage and merely in situation where it could have been reasonably
foreseen that such actions of the director would on a subject the organisation or its interest to
detriment or harm. This can be simplified as the shareholders and the organisation itself along
with the creditors of the company where the financial position of the company is not good have
to taken into consideration while determining whether the hard was possible or not and whether
the duty has been violated or not. It has also been stated by the court in this case that the best
interest of the organisation include the best interest of the members in form of members. The
judges also held at even when there is no actual damage caused to the organisation the duty of
care and diligence maybe breached by the directors of the company.
The judges in this case also provided that the question in relation to the breach of duty of
care and diligence can only be addressed properly by referring to the creation of a balance in
relation to the possible risk of harm with respect to the potential benefits which could have been
expected reasonably to be gained by the company from the actions. In addition the directors of

4BUSINESS LAW
the company have the right to rely upon the judgement, advice and information provided by
those officers of the company who have been entrusted to do so without any verification.
However the principal has to be considered in the light of the duty to make enquiry when
suspicion arises in relation to the mind of a reasonable director.
The duties violated by the directors in this case
In this case the Australian security Commission had made an allegation in relation to the
non executive director that there was a failure on his part to apply a due degree of care and
diligence in relation to his operations towards the organisation. If the situation is referred to the
contemporary law it may be stated that the director of the company was allowed to violate the
provisions which have been stated in the corporation act through section 180(1). This section
provides that while discharging the duties there must be a due degree of care intelligence
observed by the directors of the company. This due degree of care and diligence is analysed or
determined by the court by employing another reasonable director in the same position of the
director against whom the allegation has been made and then find out whether the reasonable
director would have taken the same decision as the actual director. If it can be established
through this test that the reasonable director in the same situation in that of the actual director
would have taken the same decision then the duty of care and diligence have not been breached
by the actual director. However in case the reasonable director would not have taken the decision
which was taken by the actual director then it will be stated that the actual director has violated
the provisions provided in this section.
In the contemporary law which is the Corporation Act governing organisations registered
in Australia the penalty for breaching this section by any director of a company is provided under

5BUSINESS LAW
section 1317E of the legislation. Under this section the director may be suspended by the court
from managing Corporation in Australia in the future. In addition if this civil penalty provision is
violated by any director the court in case of a serious breach has the right to impose a financial
penalty on the director as well. Moreover if the director recklessly and knowingly violates the
provision provided in section 180 then a criminal proceedings may also be brought against the
director under the provisions of section 6.1 of the criminal code.
Analysis of the decision which have been provided by the court in relation to this case.
The case involves the application of common law principles of negligence in relation to a
duty of care on corporate organization. In this case it had been ruled by the court that the non
executive director is to be excused or declared not guilty by the court in the given situation.
While providing this decision it was also held by the court that the director have violated the
duty which he had towards a company however if he is prosecuted it would discourage other
entrepreneurs to involve in decision making which may be in the interest of the organisation in
future. The decision of the case consists of both a positive and negative aspect. It was clear to the
judges in this case that the director have indulge in actions which are in violation of law.
However taking into consideration the future implications of the case the Court held at the
directors should not be liable. As done in the case of Australian Securities and Investments
Commission v Sino Australia Oil & Gas Ltd - [2014] FCA 565 in situation where the director
has violated any duty he should be prosecuted. The decision of the court in this case is also
supported by the provisions of section 1318 of the Corporation Act which have been included to
forgive the directors in situations where they violet the duty what buy them to the organisation.
Thus through this discussion it is clear that this case has a lot of legal significance in relation to
the Australian Corporate Law. It not only provides what actually constitutes the breach of the

6BUSINESS LAW
duty of diligence and care in relation to the organisation but also state the situation in which the
director may be excused from the liability. The implications of this case on the future of
Australian legal system are discussed below.
Future implications of the case in relation to the Australian legal system
One of the most significant implications of this case is that the statutory duty in relation
to diligence and care would be breached in case the director in context have failed to exercise
reasonable extent of diligence and care while exercising his power and discharging his
obligations towards organisation. In addition this duty exists or is violated even in situation
where the organisation has not faced any actual damage and merely in situation where it could
have been reasonably foreseen that such actions of the director would on a subject the
organisation or its interest to detriment or harm. This can be simplified as the shareholders and
the organisation itself along with the creditors of the company where the financial position of the
company is not good have to be taken into consideration while determining whether the hard was
possible or not and whether the duty has been violated or not. It has also been stated by the court
in this case that the best interest of the organisation include the best interest of the members in
form of members. These principles have been applied in the case of ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8)
[2016] FCA 1023 where the director was held liable for the breach of statutory duty of diligence
and care even where there was no financial loss faced by the organization. The loss of the
organization reputation was held enough by the court to come to a conclusion that the duty of
diligence and care have been violated.
In this case it had been provided by the court that the direction and management of the
organisation consists of making decisions and working upon actions which may bring much

7BUSINESS LAW
promise on one hand however on the same time they are fraught with risk on the other hand. The
application of these principles had been done by the court in the case of Re Connective Services
Pty Ltd (28 November 2017) [2017] VSC 609 as done by Robson J.
This case set out for the future that the directors has to be excused from any form of
liability as if it is not done it would be discouragement towards the expected entrepreneurship
from non-executive directors like him. These principles of the case has been established through
section 1318 of the Corporation Act 2001. However excusing a director entirely is situation
where a breach of duty has been identified has rarely been done in the legal system.
One more significant ruling which had been provided through this case is that the process
of balancing foreseeable risk in relation to harm which may arise against the potential benefits
which may have been expected reasonably to arise in relation to the organisation from the
conduct of the directors in this case. These provisions have been successfully applied in the case
of ASIC v Doyle (2001) 38 ACSR 606; ASIC v Macdonald (No 11) (2009) 256 ALR 199.
Another significant implication of this case is that where are non-executive director holds
considerable knowledge and experience as well as influencing power, while analysing his actions
they need to be compared to a standard of an executive director. In this case a non-executive
director was assumed to have significant responsibilities in relation to the operations of the
company. The application of these principles have been done by the court in the case of ASIC v
Healey (2011) FCA 717

8BUSINESS LAW
References
ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023
ASIC v Doyle (2001) 38 ACSR 606
ASIC v Healey (2011) FCA 717
ASIC v Macdonald (No 11) (2009) 256 ALR 199.
Corporation Act 2001 (Cth)
Re Connective Services Pty Ltd (28 November 2017) [2017] VSC 609
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission [1993] 9 WAR 395