← All Authorities
Australia duty of care skill diligence s174

Barclay v Penberthy

(2012) 246 CLR 258
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2012
StatusBinding authority

Summary

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.

Key Principle

The HCA considered the duty of care under s.180 of the Corporations Act and held that the standard is that of a reasonable person in the director's position, taking into account the corporation's circumstances and the director's office.

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.

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) (Accessory) [2012] FCAFC 6

A third party who knowingly participates in a breach of fiduciary duty is liable as an accessory under the Barnes v Addy knowing assistance principle.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Barclay v Penberthy and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Barclay v Penberthy