2011Journal of Corporate Law StudiesRequires access

The Duty of Directors to Act Bona Fide in the Interests of the Company: A Positive Fiduciary Duty? Australia and the UK Compared

Rosemary Teele Langford

Open publisher page 23 citations

Abstract

The fiduciary classification of the fundamental duty of directors to act bona fide in the interests of the company is in doubt in Australia due to apparent recent narrowing of the fiduciary principle by the High Court and many commentators. By contrast, the fiduciary characterisation and positive operation of the duty in the UK are clearer. This article outlines the differences between the operation of the duty in each jurisdiction and the reasons for these differences. It explores the significance of fiduciary classification (particularly in terms of loyalty and the imposition of liability based on the rule in Barnes v Addy) and the distinctive use of this duty to require directors to consider the interests of creditors. The duty to act bona fide in the interests of the company should continue to be classed as a fiduciary duty. In this respect the position in the UK is to be preferred.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The fiduciary classification of the fundamental duty of directors to act bona fide in the interests of the company is in doubt in Australia due to apparent recent narrowing of the fiduciary principle by the High Court and many commentators. By contrast, the fiduciary characterisation and positive operation of the duty in the UK are clearer. This article outlines the differences between the operation of the duty in each jurisdiction and the reasons for these differences. It explores the significance of fiduciary classification (particularly in terms of loyalty and the imposition of liability based on the rule in Barnes v Addy) and the distinctive use of this duty to require directors to consider the interests of creditors. The duty to act bona fide in the interests of the company should continue to be classed as a fiduciary duty. In this respect the position in the UK is to be preferred.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 23 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The fiduciary classification of the fundamental duty of directors to act bona fide in the interests of the company is in doubt in Australia due to apparent recent narrowing of the fiduciary principle by the High Court and many commentators. By contrast, the fiduciary characterisation and positive operation of the duty in the UK are clearer. This article outlines the differences between the operation of the duty in each jurisdiction and the reasons for these differences. It explores the significance of fiduciary classification (particularly in terms of loyalty and the imposition of liability based on the rule in Barnes v Addy) and the distinctive use of this duty to require directors to consider the interests of creditors. The duty to act bona fide in the interests of the company should continue to be classed as a fiduciary duty. In this respect the position in the UK is to be preferred.

Key concepts: Fiduciary, Duty, Duty of loyalty, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Law, Business, Liability

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Duty of Directors to Act Bona Fide in the Interests of the Company: A Positive Fiduciary Duty? Australia and the UK Compared — Research Paper | ScholarLens