Shafron V ASIC [2012] HCA 18-Case-Study-Free-Samples for Students

Questions: Identify the following: 1.Legal terms and their meanings relevant to the case. 2.The major legal Issues area(s) of law in dispute. 3.The relevant law (cases and statutes) relied on by the judge in making his/her decision. 4.The actual decision of the case. Answers: Case Summery Shafron v ASIC [2012] HCA 18 1.The Relevant Facts of the Case: The fact of the case is Mr. Shafron was of the employer in Hardie where he the post of general counsel and company secretary until November, 1998 and in 1999 Mr. Donald Cameron joint the company. The board of the company has found that Mr. Shafron has breached the Sec-180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)[1]. 2.The Major Legal Issues: According to the Sec-180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)[2] defines that the director has goof fait and civil obligation towards the company when they are exercising their powers and duties. The NSW Court of Appeal has found that Mr. Shafron has breach the duties of the participating in decision making process which made the effect the whole company. In this matter he argued that the company secretary has limited duties in decision making[3]. However he mentioned that as a secretary of the company and his capacity of working he did his tasks in Hardie[4]. In the decision making process, a company secretary has the role and responsibility to participate in the process as a decision maker on that decision on the separation proposal of the board[5]. There is no evidence has been found where he can prove that he maintain the responsibilities with care and diligence in the office[6]. Therefore the company has sued Mr. Shafron for breach his secretarial duty towards the office[7]. 3.The Relevant Law: According to the fact and argument of Mr Shafron the court has rejected the argument and claim of him. The Sec- 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) defies the term officer who can be director or secretary of the company and has the right to making or participate in decision making process. The Sec- 180(1) defines the directors duty where a director has the right to exercise their power and discharge with proper care and diligence[8]. According to the case study, Mr Shafron is the secretary of the company and he has duty towards the company in decision making where he was argued that he has limited responsibility in decision making[9]. Whereas, the sec- 180(1) defines that he has a proper duty toward the company to making decision[10]. In the case, the court has find that he has breached the Sec-180(1) towards the company and according to the responsibility he must complete his actual responsibilities as the secretary of the company[11]. When the decision making process has been decided he must complete the responsibilities to Hardie and support the finding which duty he has owned. 4.The Actual Decision of the Case: According to the courts finding, Mr Shafron has the duty toward the company as a secretary where he has breached his responsibilities, which affect on the decision of the company[12]. The court has reject his argument and found that due to the lack of responsibility the company was affected[13]. References Barber, Fran. "'Directors Duties' Imposed Below Board Level." (2013). Barber, Fran. "Indirectly directors: Duties owed below the board." Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. 45 (2014): 27. Campbell, Tiffany. "The obligations and risks imposed on directors by workplace laws." Governance Directions 68.9 (2016): 530. Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. "Securities regulation: Cases and materials." (2015). Hanrahan, Pamela, and Tim Bednall. "Independence of directors affiliated with substantial shareholders: issues of law and corporate governance." COMPANY SEC. LJ 33 (2015): 239. Keay, Andrew. "The shifting of directors' duties in the vicinity of insolvency." International Insolvency Review 24.2 (2015): 140-164. Langford, Rosemary Teele, Ian Ramsay, and Michelle Anne Welsh. "The origins of company directors' statutory duty of care." (2015). OReilly, Trish, and Bill Turner. "Duty of care in Africa: What does it really mean?." Australia's Paydirt 1.219 (2014): 48. Peden, Elisabeth. "Civil and criminal liability of directors and officers of sporting clubs." Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia 31.1 (2017): 12. Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] HCA 18. 247 CLR 465; 86 ALJR 584; 286 ALR 612 Van Tonder, Jan Louis. "An analysis of the directors' duty to act in the best interests of the company, through the lens of the business judgment rule." Obiter 36.3 (2015): 702-724. Varzaly, Jenifer. "The Enforcement of Directors Duties in Australia: An Empirical Analysis." European Business Organization Law Review 16.2 (2015): 281-319 Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] HCA 18. 247 CLR 465; 86 ALJR 584; 286 ALR 612 Langford, Rosemary Teele, Ian Ramsay, and Michelle Anne Welsh. "The origins of company directors' statutory duty of care." (2015). Hanrahan, Pamela, and Tim Bednall. "Independence of directors affiliated with substantial shareholders: issues of law and corporate governance." COMPANY SEC. LJ 33 (2015): 239. Campbell, Tiffany. "The obligations and risks imposed on directors by workplace laws." Governance Directions 68.9 (2016): 530. Barber, Fran. "Indirectly directors: Duties owed below the board." Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. 45 (2014): 27. Campbell, Tiffany. "The obligations and risks imposed on directors by workplace laws." Governance Directions 68.9 (2016): 530. Barber, Fran. "'Directors Duties' Imposed Below Board Level." (2013). Langford, Rosemary Teele, Ian Ramsay, and Michelle Anne Welsh. "The origins of company directors' statutory duty of care." (2015). Hanrahan, Pamela, and Tim Bednall. "Independence of directors affiliated with substantial shareholders: issues of law and corporate governance." COMPANY SEC. LJ 33 (2015): 239. Barber, Fran. "'Directors Duties' Imposed Below Board Level." (2013). Campbell, Tiffany. "The obligations and risks imposed on directors by workplace laws." Governance Directions 68.9 (2016): 530. Hanrahan, Pamela, and Tim Bednall. "Independence of directors affiliated with substantial shareholders: issues of law and corporate governance." COMPANY SEC. LJ 33 (2015): 239. Langford, Rosemary Teele, Ian Ramsay, and Michelle Anne Welsh. "The origins of company directors' statutory duty of care." (2015).