ASIC V. Rich 2009: NSWSC 1229

ASIC v. Rich [2009] NSWSC 1229- Case Analysis

Background

One.Tel was an Australia based GSM service provider meaning it functioned mainly in the telecom sector and eventually grew to become Australia’s fourth largest telecom service provider before being shrouded in controversy which lead to its eventual downfall. Jodee Rich and other executive directors of the company faced accusations of not discharging their duties as directors effectively with respect to the duty of care they had towards the best interests of the company. This duty is mandated by Section 180 of the Corporations Act, 2001 as well as principles of common law.

Application

Corporations functioning within the jurisdiction of the Australian Commonwealth are governed and regulated by the provisions of the Corporations Act, 2001. Common law principles developed through judicial

This decision was made in good faith and cannot be conspicuously construed to have self-interests veiled in them. Further, the executive directors made an informed decision to refrain from passing this information to the board and they did believe that this would be in the best interests of the company as disclosure would have brought an end to the company’s existence much before the actual downfall. Thus this judgment met all the requisites prescribed under the provisions of Section 180 (2) of the Corporations Act, 2001 (Rawhouser, Cummings and Crane 2015). This case was the first to comprehensively lay down the business judgment defense and apply it to the facts and circumstances of a case. This defense would negate the apparent breach of the duties of the directors as prescribed by the statute and under common