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

  • Ending an indefinite contract

    Ending an indefinite contract

    Terminating an Indefinite Contract can be complex. This article examines the issues of reasonable notice, compensation, commission, and case studies to help answer common questions.

    Read more …

  • Just and equitable winding up – shareholder oppression

    Just and equitable winding up – shareholder oppression

    Discontinuing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia can be costly, as the default position is that the discontinuing party pays the other party’s costs. However, the Court has discretion to award costs and may consider the parties’ conduct and reasons for discontinuance.

    Read more …

  • Director’s identification numbers to become a reality

    Director’s identification numbers to become a reality

    On 12 June 2020, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Registries Modernisation and Other Measures) Act 2020 introduced the requirement for all Australian company directors to have a “Director Identification Number” (DIN).  The DIN will become a single identifier for each director across all of their office holdings with the true identity of each director is verified…

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a section 293 direction?

    What exactly is a section 293 direction?

    There are several reasons why a shareholder may require financial information, primarily they are denied access to the ‘accounts’ so as to make informed decision about the company.  The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides various mechanisms for shareholders to obtain financial and accounting information about a company, to allow them to access full and…

    Read more …

  • Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    This article explores shareholder oppression, examining Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Martin v Australian Squash Club Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 452, to understand the cumulative effect of individual acts.

    Read more …

  • What are sophisticated investors?

    What are sophisticated investors?

    This article provides an overview of the requirements for a person to be a sophisticated investor under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth). It covers the definition of ‘person’, the Assets Test and Income Test, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) guidance, and the complexities of self-managed super funds.

    Read more …

  • e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • Company funds must be used for company purposes

    Company funds must be used for company purposes

    This article examines the legal principles behind when it is permissible to use company funds, focusing on the case of Re D G Brims and Sons Pty Ltd (1995) 16 ASCR 559, which established that company funds must only be used for company purposes and not to pay for legal costs of proceedings for the…

    Read more …

  • The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    The running account defence to unfair preference claims

    Creditors who have been paid by a customer on credit may find themselves facing an Unfair Preference claim letter from a liquidator. Learn more about the defences available to creditors and how to protect yourself from repaying more than your fair share.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend