Section | Duty | Example |
171 | Duty to act within powers Act in accordance with the company’s constitution and only exercise powers for which they are conferred (also see MA 3). | Punt v Symons (1903): If the issuing of shares is to raise capital and not to help block an undesirable takeover, a director cannot issue new shares to people just so they will oppose the block. He is not using his powers for the purpose for which the powers were conferred – keeping themselves in office is not regarded as a ‘proper purpose’. |
172 | Duty to promote the success of the company Act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. -
Must have regard (amongst other matters) to: the likely consequences of any decision in the long term the interests of the company's employees the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct the need to act fairly as between the members of the company Regentcrest plc v Cohen (1988) – subjective test: did the directors think they were acting in good faith for the benefit of the members? Charterbridge Corp Ltd v Lloyds Bank Ltd (1970) – objective test: is the director an honest and intelligent person acting in the position of director? difficult to breach – concept of business judgment, so the courts don’t like to intervene unless the company’s survival is at risk, mere incompetence will not constitute a breach in fiduciary duty if the director honestly believed he was acting in the best interest of the company | |
173 | Duty to exercise independent judgment Directors must make their own decisions but does not prevent you from acting in accordance with the company’s constitution or an agreement which the company has entered into. can contract out under s.173(b) Fullham FC v Cabra Estates (1994): if the director’s actions end up being in the best interest of the company, then the duty will not be broken. | |
174 | Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence S.174(2)(a) – general objective test: judge each director against ‘the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected’ of an individual carrying out their director role S.174(2)(b) – small subjective test: “as well as the knowledge and experience that the director actually has” (entitled to expect more from a more experienced director) Also see s.214(4) Insolvency Act 1986: A reasonably diligent person [has] both– (a) the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that director in relation to the company, and (b) the general knowledge, skill and experience that that director [actually] has. | Re: D'Jan of London Ltd (1994): director was found negligent and liable for the company’s losses after signing an inaccurate proposal without reading it. Re Barings plc (No 5) (2000): directors have a continuing duty to exercise care, skill, and diligence even when they have delegated things – this does not absolve them Cohen v Selby (2001): sit back & do nothing = breach of reasonable care, skill and diligence |
175 | Duty to avoid conflicts of interest The director must exploit property, info or opportunity for the benefit of the company and not themselves; it is irrelevant whether or not the company could take advantage. | |
176 | Duty not to accept benefits from third parties A director must not accept a benefit from a third party given because he is a director or because he does (or does not do) anything as a director. | |
177 | Duty to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement If you are in any way, directly or indirectly, interested in a transaction or arrangement the company is considering/partaking in, you must declare the nature and extent of that interest to the other directors. | |
182 | Declaration of interest in existing transaction or arrangement A breach of s.177 will often eventually lead to a breach of s.182, which is a criminal offence. “Where a director of a company is in any way, directly or indirectly, interested in a transaction or arrangement that has been entered into by the company, he must declare the nature and extent of the interest to the other directors in accordance with this section.” | |
Consequences |
178 | Civil consequences of breach of general duties The consequences of breach (or threatened breach) of sections 171 to 177 are the same as would apply if the corresponding common law rule or equitable principle applied. The duties in those sections (with the exception of section 174 (duty to...
|