Pursuit Revisited

27 Pages Posted: 2 May 2020 Last revised: 6 May 2020

Date Written: March 9, 2020

Abstract

Some Australian cases concerning company directors have required pursuit of a conflict (rather than real sensible possibility of conflict) in order to found breach of the duty to avoid conflicts. It has been shown elsewhere that real sensible possibility of conflict is more suitable as a baseline standard. However, it is possible that the concept of pursuit may explain or organize categories of cases and requirements relating to conflicted directors. This article critically analyses the suitability of adopting pursuit as an organizing principle in the context of competing directorships, situations in which positive requirements are imposed on conflicted directors, actual conflicts (in the sense used by Millett LJ in Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew) and statutory duties concerning improper use of position or of information. Relevant concepts employed by the courts in relation to conflicted directors are also arranged along a spectrum to bring clarity to the analysis.

Keywords: directors' duties; fiduciary duties; conflicts; competing directorships

JEL Classification: K22; K19

Suggested Citation

Langford, Rosemary Teele, Pursuit Revisited (March 9, 2020). 13 Journal of Equity 267, 2020, U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 877, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3551122 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551122

Rosemary Teele Langford (Contact Author)

University of Melbourne - Law School ( email )

University Square
185 Pelham Street, Carlton
Victoria, Victoria 3010
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
33
Abstract Views
1,246
PlumX Metrics