disqualification Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

2 types of DQ

A

discretionary & mandatory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

DQ order

A

s 1(1) CDDA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Re Cannonquest

A

cannot participate in the promotion of a new company during DQ period

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Rv Campbell

A

cannot be concerned/take part in co’s management via acting in some other capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

discretionary

A

ss 2-4

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

mandatory

A

s 6: insolvency & unfitness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Re Grayan

A

once unfitness established, mandatory DQ kicks in. Doesnt matter how contrite D is, court shall have no regard to D’s reform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Re Lo-Line

A

ordinary commercial misjudgment insufficient eg lack of commercial probity, gross negli, total incompetence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Re Dawson

A

courts take a subjective view, on a case-by-case basis

otf, D used crown debts to finance co operations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sullman

A

breach of duty not required, broad-conduct based approach. unfitness can be demonstrated by conduct w/o breach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

TC Stephenson

A

merely being signatory to co’s cheques doesnt make D liable. DQ order dismissed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

difference between WT & FT

A

WT = recklessness, FT = intention to defraud

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Welham v DPP

A

actual dishonesty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Re Patrick

A

real dishonesty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Re Augustus Barnett

A

comfort letters from parent co to sub = sign of honesty rather than fraud. claim failed.
FT hard to prove

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re William C Leitch

A

if co cont trading & incurring debts at a time where D know there is no reasonable prospect of repaying creditors = intent to defraud

17
Q

standard of skill expected for WT

A

Re Continental Assurance

intelligent layman

18
Q

lack of basic financial & accounting knowledge = no defence

A

ASIC v Healey, RE DKG

19
Q

not playing an active part in management = no defence

A

RE Brian Pierson

no such thing as sleeping Ds

20
Q

defence

A

s 214(3)

21
Q

Robin v Gunner

A

increasing company’s indebtedness; courts take a dim view on this

22
Q

Absence of professional advice no defence

A

Re Brian D Pierson

23
Q

Re Purpoint

A

resigning from board & seeking opportunities elsewhere is not acceptable course of action