The standard of behaviour expected of a company director was described: ‘As directors, I am not aware that there is any difference between their legal and their equitable duties. If directors act within their powers, if they act with such care as is reasonably to be expected from them, having regard to their knowledge and experience, and if they act honestly for the benefit of the company they represent, they discharge both their equitable as well as their legal duty to the company. In this case they clearly acted within their powers: they did nothing ultra vires: fraud is not imputed. The inquiry, therefore, is reduced to want of care and bona fides with a view to the interests of the nitrate company. The amount of care to be taken is difficult to define; but it is plain that directors are not liable for all the mistakes they may make, although if they had taken more care they might have avoided them: see Overend, Gurney and Co. v. Gibb. Their negligence must be not the omission to take all possible care; it must be much more blameable than that: it must be in a business sense culpable or gross.’
Judges:
Lindley MR
Citations:
[1899] 2 Ch 392
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Goldberg, Mcavoy ChD 26-Nov-2003
The Secretary of State sought a disqualification order. The director argued that one shoul not be made in the absence of some breach of legal duty, some dishonesty should be shown.
Held: The answer was a mixture of fact and law. A breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.188612