Corporate law Brisbane

Diversion of the corporate opportunity doctrine

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawCorporate lawDiversion of the corporate opportunity doctrine

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–5 minutes

Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company they direct and its shareholders.  This duty owed by the directors (Directors) arise by virtue of the fiduciary relationship in equity between a director and the company and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

What is the corporate opportunity principle?

One particular duty of a Director as shown by the case law is not to make a personal gain at the expense of the company.  Directors who personally exploit an opportunity or knowledge gained by virtue of their position may be breaching their fiduciary obligations.  This is referred to as the corporate opportunity principle, and is characterised by a conflict between a Director’s personal interests, and the interests of the company.[1]  In these conflict situations, the Director’s fiduciary duty to the company prevents them from acting in their own interest.  In recognition of the importance of this duty is the Act, section 182 of which expressly prohibits directors from misusing:

  • their position as a director;[2] or
  • information obtained by virtue of this position;[3] or
  • gain an advantage for themselves or someone else; or
  • cause detriment to the company.

Section 182 is a civil penalty provision, meaning that if breached, ASIC can impose pecuniary penalties on a Director who contravenes it.  Further, in equity, the company may be entitled to seek relief from the courts against a Director who breaches their fiduciary duty to the company.

Remedies that may be available to a company include an account of profits, equitable compensation from the Director, and imposition of a constructive trust over the profits made by the Director.

When can a Director personally pursue an opportunity?

Notwithstanding the Director’s many duties to the company, there are circumstances where there Director may personally pursue an opportunity.  These are explained below.

Fully informed consent

The most appropriate method of refuting liability under the Act or in equity is to obtain fully informed consent from the company to pursue the opportunity in a personal capacity.  In obtaining consent, the Director must disclose all material facts and information to the company to allow it to make an informed decision whether to provide its consent or not.  There is authority that consent obtained from the company’s board of directors is sufficient.[4]

Opportunities outside scope of “trust and agency”

Where a Director personally pursues an opportunity which arose by virtue of their position as director, liability may be found not to apply where the opportunity was “outside the scope of the trust and outside the scope of the agency”.[5]  In other words, where the opportunity was not related to the person’s position as a director, they will not be acting in breach of their duties to the company by pursuing it personally.

For example, in the context of intellectual property the court has stated that the mere fact that a person is a Director of a company should not disqualify them from taking out a patent for an invention made by them during their period of service in that position.[6]

What should you do if you wish to personally pursue an opportunity?

The corporate opportunity principle makes it clear that Directors should tread very carefully when considering pursuing opportunities for personal profit.

Best practice would be to seek the fully informed consent of the company.  Even where a Director is confident their actions would not amount to a breach of their duties to the company, receiving the fully informed consent company will go a long way to relieving the Director of liability.

Where it is not possible to receive the fully informed consent of the company, or it is otherwise undesirable to inform the company of the opportunity, one should consider how the opportunity came to fruition.

If it is a direct result of his or her position as Director, then pursuing that opportunity without receiving the fully informed consent of the company is likely to amount to a breach of duty to the company.

Resigning as Director will not offer protection from an action for breach of fiduciary duty, however, if the opportunity is substantial and you will not be able to adequately service the company, this should be considered.

Links and further references

Cases

Cornerstone Property & Development Pty Ltd v Suellen Properties Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 265

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2005] WASCA 144 at [67]

Queensland Mines Ltd v Hudson (1978) 18 ALR 1

Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1

Further information about directors duties

If you need advice regarding your duties as a director of a company or have a dispute with other directors, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1.

[2] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s. 182.

[3] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s. 183.

[4] Queensland Mines Ltd v Hudson (1978) 18 ALR 1.

[5] Cornerstone Property & Development Pty Ltd v Suellen Properties Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 265.

[6] Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2005] WASCA 144 at [67].


Related insights about directors duties

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • Valuing ESS Interests

    Valuing ESS Interests

    A company, whether listed or unlisted, can grant its employees an interest in its equity (ESS Interest), including through an employee share scheme (ESS) or employee share option plan (ESOP).  There are restrictions contained in both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA) that determine the price…

    Read more …

  • ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company.  While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law.  This article explains the key…

    Read more …

  • Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.  

    Read more …

  • Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232.  These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders.  While primarily…

    Read more …

  • Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors are personally liable for ensuring their company operates in accordance with corporate governance and accounting standards.  Obligations contained in part 2M.2 and 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) outline obligations for companies to keep financial records and prepare annual financial and director’s reports.  Sections 180 and 344 of the Corporations Act…

    Read more …

  • Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Australian accounting standards (Accounting Standards) are often considered solely the domain of auditors and accountants.  However, they are a crucial aspect of corporate law and governance in Australia.  For directors, officers, and their professional advisers, the key issue is not the technical details of the Accounting Standards, but rather their legal enforceability.  A failure to…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend