Corporate Law Assessment Task Final Complete Details

Assessment Task Final Corporation Law

Ilac Method

Flyways Pty ltd company case study

Facts and Figures

Flyway Pty Ltd is a little private little carrier organization working diagrammed flights for little gatherings of up to twelve individuals in the middle of Adelaide and Mount Gambier. Subside; Paul John and Joseph are Directors of Flyaway, as one of their graphed flights had vanished. Soon after two months an alternate flight was shot around a terrorist bunch. These two occurrences had a significant effect on Flyaway’s benefit. Business was on a fast decay and if things didn’t enhance Flyaway was going into liquidation. Flyaway chooses to repackage its picture and grow its business to a more extensive market in a push to protect the organization. To do this Flyaway gets $10 million from Citibank. After eight months Flyaway goes into liquidation as it was not able to pay its bills. About this time another high speed train organization, Speed Bullet Pty Ltd, had begun operations in Adelaide covering the exceptionally same courses that Flyaway was doing and was likewise offering more courses and ends of the line. This new prepare administration which chops down train adventure times by almost a large portion of the standard time was ended up being extremely well known and was fundamentally less expensive than flying. This had a real effect on Flyaway’s business. Paul was not exhibit at the gathering when the choice to extend was made as he was in clinic recouping from a genuine mischance. Subside, as was his typical practice, had not gone to the gathering however marked the obliged documentation for getting the advance. It was later found that John was approached by Speed Bullet Pty Ltd when the organization was being shaped and was currently a noteworthy shareholder of Speed Bullet. Whatever is left of the executives of Flyaway were unconscious of this. Meanwhile, Mary, a Flyaway shareholder, who is despondent with Flyaway’s extension choice, persuades a couple of different shareholders and requires a gathering and a determination is passed opposing the Citibank advance and the development plans.

Corporate Law


Whether directors of the Flyway Pty Ltd company; have breached their duties of care under Corporations Act 2001 and General Law by engaging into insolvent trading.

Wether Paul is subject to negligence or not. Due to matter of the fact he was not even present in meeting due to serious illness when the decision was being taken.

Wether John has breached its director’s duties that he holds to Flyway Pty Ltd by entering into shareholder scheme with bullet train without even informing the current members of company.

Whether Flyways Pty Ltd Shareholders has right to ask for remedy of losses that occurred by entering to transaction with Citibank.


The Corporations Act 2001 focuses out four rule commitments for Directors:

Care and Diligence: This is to act with the level of thought and enterprising nature that a sensible individual may be depended upon to show in the part (s 180). The same commitment is constrained on boss at essential law (Bede Harris, n.d.). The business judgment rule (inspected underneath) gives a “safe harbor” for an official in association with a case at essential law or under (s 180).

Good Faith: This is to act as per some essential trustworthiness to the best point of interest of the association and for a fitting reason (s 181), this also including to avoid conflicts of speculation, and to reveal and administer conflicts in case they develop (Bede Harris, n.d.). This is both a commitment of dedication and trust, known as a ‘watchman commitment’ constrained by general law and a commitment required in sanctioning (Austlii, n.d.-a).

Improper Use of Position: This is to not detestably use their position to get influence for themselves or someone else or to the shortcoming to the association (s 182).

Improper Use of Information: This is to not disgracefully use the information they get as a piece of the course of their official commitments to get room for themselves or someone else or to the shortcoming to the association (s 183).

S (79) Part sets out the absolute and most huge obligations for directors, secretaries, different officers and workers of organizations. Different obligations are forced by different procurements of this Act and different laws. This includes general law as well (Austlii, n.d.-b).

Directors have long been joined with different ordinary law commitments. Four of these commitments get from the way that boss are in a position of trust towards the association and owe it a commitment of extraordinary certainty. They are accordingly depicted as trustee commitments:

  • Obligation to act genuine for best playing point of Corporation (s 181)
  • Obligation to practice powers for genuine reason (s 181)
  • Obligation not to shackle alert (s 181)
  • Obligation to avoid conflicts of excitement with Corporation (s 182 + 183)

The fifth typical law commitments gets from the way that a boss owes his or her association a commitment of thought, this is subsequently not assigned a trustee commitment, as it gets from the law of negligence (“Pwc.Com.Au,” n.d.).


Given that, executives of Flyway Pty Limited Company Peter, Paul John and Joseph do have fiduciary obligation towards corporation as its respected directors. As for the situation Hospital Products v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41 it was held that this infers a commitment to act in light of a real sympathy toward the social affair to which it is owed. On the other taking a gander at the detailed analysis association understood that they don’t have future development in the current business. So they attempted to grow their operations and search for something that can help association to accomplish its targets get together with desire of stakeholders and stockholders. In this manner under a boss’ gatekeeper commitments, executive must act to the best playing point of the Corporation all in all. Regardless of the way that the commitment basically obliges an official to really acknowledge that they are acting to the best point of interest of the Co, that does not suggest that the commitment is totally subjective (i.e. that all an official needs to do is acknowledge that they are acting to the best focal point of the Corporation). In ASIC v Adler [2002] NSWSC 171 the court held that the commitment has a target segment, and will be burst if no sensible boss could acknowledge that the conduct being alluded to was to the best preference of the Corporation (Bede Harris, n.d.).

The courts will first choose whether or not the executives of the organization have occupied with bankrupt exchanging and ruptured s588g. There ought to be an examination of s588g (1)(2)(3); whether an obligation was caused; suspicion of bankruptcy; what organization indebtedness implies: s95 A (1) characterizes dissolvability as having the capacity to pay obligations as and when they fall due. S95 A (2) characterizes bankruptcy as not being dissolvable. In this circumstance it is profoundly likely that the organization will be pronounced bankrupt (Bede Harris, n.d.).

At the point when an organization is pronounced bankrupt the courts are readied to lift the corporate cover and go behind the organization to append risk to the chiefs under s588g where the executives had an obligation to forestall indebted exchanging – an exemption to the Separate Legal Entity Doctrine was built in Solomon v Solomon & Corporation Limited (Bede Harris, n.d.).

Safeguards accessible to the executives are as per the following:-

Paul would utilize the safeguard under S588h (4) which permit an executive easing on the off chance that he was sick when the obligation is brought about. Albeit not applicable here there are cases utilized for a protection under this area:

  • Metropolitan Fire Systems v Miller [1997] 23 ACSR 699
  • Powell & Duncan v Fryer [2000] 18 ACLC 480
  • Tourprint International Pty Ltd v Bott [1999] 17 ACLC 1543
  • ASIC v Plymin, Elliot & Harrison [2003] VSC 123 (Water Wheel case)
  • Southern Cross Interiors P/L v D Com Tax [2001] NSWSC 621
  • Additionally see advance choice in DC of T v Clarke [2003] NSWSC 91

On the off chance that executives had sensible grounds to expect dissolvability S588h (2) they might likewise have the capacity to utilize this as a protection. Peter couldn’t utilize this safeguard as he had not gone to any gatherings and appeared to make no endeavour to familiarize himself with the issues of the organization (Bede Harris, n.d.). As stated in below cases;

  • CBA of Aust v Friedrich,
  • Tour print International Pty Ltd v Bott [1999] 17 ACLC 1543,
  • ASIC v Plymin, Elliot & Harrison [2003] VSC 123 (Water Wheel case),
  • Southern Cross Interiors P/L v D Com Tax [2001] NSWSC 621;
  • Likewise see advance choice in DC of T v Clarke [2003] NSWSC 91).


The second issue is that of John’s break of executives obligations which he owed to Flyway Pty Ltd. John had trustee obligations at regular law and in addition obligations under S180-183. Normal law obligations as a trustee to Flyway Pty Ltd incorporate:-

  • Duty to act true blue and in accordance with some basic honesty.
  • Duty to act with consideration, ability and industriousness.


Statutory obligations under S180-183 incorporate:-

  • S181 duty to act in compliance with common decency
  • S180 (1) obligation of consideration, ability and steadiness.
  • S182 & 183 duties not to abuse the position or make dishonourable utilization of data picked up whilst in the position of executive.

Ruptures of these obligations are examined underneath:-

John has a statutory obligation to reveal material diversions to the organization (S191.) This incorporates when he has an enthusiasm for an agreement being gone into with the Speed Bullet Pty Ltd contract with Flyway Pty Ltd. And breaking this procurement he has broken S181 by neglecting to act true blue (in products confidence) and has additionally ruptured his basic law guardian obligation to maintain a strategic distance from clashes of investment.

John has likewise ruptured obligations by utilizing his position as chief for individual addition to the hindrance of the organization and abusing data picked up whilst in the position of executive of Flyways Pty Ltd. (S182 & 183); He has done this by approaching Flyways Pty Ltd clients who have then put requests with John which would have been to the impairment of Flyways Pty Ltd. This has additionally ruptured basic law guardian obligations by usurping corporate open doors which would generally have been taken up by Flyways Pty Ltd (Pacific Shipping Co. Case.)  This is additionally a rupture of executives’ necessities to act in products confidence S181 and common law (Bede Harris, n.d.).


Conclusion can draw from above facts and figures that john, peter, and Joseph have thus indeed breached directors excluding Paul as he was not part of meeting dur to serious illness. Moreover shareholder has authority to overcome the decision and as for remedy from directors act of negligence and insolvency. John may have to pay Flyway Pty Ltd profits made from his personal contracts (Furs Ltd v Tomkies). S1317HA (1) also allows for recovery of profits by Flyways Pty ltd and compensation for loss or damage caused by John’s breaches of his duties under S180-183.


Austlii. (n.d.-a). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from

Austlii. (n.d.-b). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from

Austlii. (n.d.-a). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from

Austlii. (n.d.-a). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from

Austlii. (n.d.-a). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from

Austlii. (n.d.-a). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from

Austlii. (n.d.-a). Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from

Bede Harris. (n.d.). Business and Corporations Law, Study Guide, 161–181.

Pwc.Com.Au. (n.d.).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here