Company Law

Company handlers dutiesa ) As directors of X Ltd , Brendan , rapture and David s duties of carefulness in the management of the company are determined by truth , familiar law and statute . In this case , the directors see on have held different positions according to which the exemplification of care result now be examined But at the fount , it stomach be said that all the three Brendan , tenner and David did non exercise the ensample of care , acquirement and diligence . As per section 174 of the Companies Act , directors are expected to bestow middle care , dexterity and diligence as can be expected of a person with command fill inledge , skill and experience in discharging the functions of the management of the company . This is a learn of the subjective and objective test laid down in section 214 (4 ) of t he Insolvency Act 1986 . The provision of the Companies Act is more rump which has marked the end of subjective test prescribed by the case law in City Equitable shift Insurance Company Ltd Re (1925 . Hence this provision gives a nominal standard on objective basis in the case of an ordinary person and this standard can be raised on subjective basis depending on the purposeless skill and dealledge possessed by an individual director of a company . The Act is silent whether this is a universal law duty or equitable duty that section 178 says that it is not a fiduciary duty image 170 says that this duty is owed to the company and not to the members of the company . In Elgindata Ltd . Re (1991 , it was held that members could not expect that Managing conductor should have had the standard of world(a) management and that quality of management involved general risks in investingBrendanBrendan is the Managing Director who is expected to be in the know of all things concerni ng the company .

There can be zero point which can happen without his knowledge unless it is a calculated two-faced activity indulged in by any other directors , officers or employees of the company . Its large-scale losses were suppressed in the books by Brendan and by so concealing , he managed to get hard cash in hand from Merilla as share capital and as well as a contribute of ? 10 million from the Bank . later Brendan hid the fact from Adam also when he questioned him at the interpreter of company s financial controller Sereka . Brendan s conduct was therefore knock over and fraudulent and he did not discharge his duties to the company he owed to it as its Managing Director . As the company had long forwards become bankrupt due to losses which Brendan managed to conceal until it was substantiate by the executive , his conduct of fraudulent trading attracts disqualification as director for minimum 2 years and maximum fifteen years as per the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 . A modify person is not permitted to act in any secondary capacities such as a promoter during the period of disqualification as held in ex officio Receiver v Hannan (1997 ) In UK law...If you neediness to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay