← All Authorities
Australia conflict of interest s175duty of care skill diligence s174

Heydon v NRMA Ltd

(2000) 51 NSWLR 1
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtNew South Wales Court of Appeal
Year2000
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Directors owe duties to avoid conflicts of interest and must exercise care under s 180 Corporations Act; the business judgment rule may provide a defence in associated transactions.

Key Principle

directors' duties; conflict of interest; associated transactions; s 180 Corporations Act; business judgment rule

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 Heydon v NRMA Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Heydon v NRMA Ltd