← All Authorities
Australia duty of care skill diligence s174

ASIC v Rich

[2009] NSWSC 1229
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtSupreme Court of New South Wales
Year2009
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Comprehensive analysis of the duty of care and diligence owed by directors under s.180 of the Corporations Act, applying the reasonable director standard.

Key Principle

directors' duties of care and diligence under s.180 Corporations Act; comprehensive analysis of reasonable director standard

Area of Law

company

Related Cases

Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 247 CLR 465

A company secretary is an 'officer' under the Corporations Act and owes a duty of care and diligence under s 180 in performing their functions.

Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] WASCA 157

Directors of an insolvent company owe duties to creditors, and bank claims may be subordinated where unconscionable conduct is established in dealings with the insolvent company.

Barclay v Penberthy (2012) 246 CLR 258

The standard of care under s 180 of the Corporations Act is that of a reasonable person in the director's position, having regard to the corporation's circumstances and the director's office.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of ASIC v Rich and how it applies to your situation.

Explain ASIC v Rich