← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case duty of care skill diligence s174

Daniels v Anderson

(1995) 37 NSWLR 438
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtNew South Wales Court of Appeal
Year1995
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Non-executive directors owe a minimum standard of diligence and cannot remain passive; the AWA case established modern Australian directors' duty of care.

Key Principle

directors' duty of care; AWA case; non-executive directors must maintain a minimum standard of diligence

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 Daniels v Anderson and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Daniels v Anderson