Citation: Permanent Building Society (in liq) v Wheeler (1994) 11 WAR 187; 12 ACLC 674; 14 ACSR 109
- Court: Supreme Court of Western Australia
- Year of Judgment: 1994
- Judges: Ipp J (delivering the reasons of the Court)
- Areas of Law: Corporate law, directors’ duties, fiduciary obligations
The case of Permanent Building Society (in liquidation) v Wheeler (1994) 11 WAR 187 is a significant decision in Australian corporate law, particularly concerning directors’ duties and conflicts of interest.
Facts (Permanent Building Society v Wheeler)
Permanent Building Society (PBS) was a financial institution that, prior to its liquidation, had engaged in various transactions under the direction of its board. Mr. Wheeler served as a director of PBS and simultaneously held directorial positions in other entities, including Capital Hill (CH). PBS extended a loan of $1.5 million to CH, a company in which Wheeler had an interest. At the time the loan was granted, CH was in a precarious financial situation, which Wheeler was aware of. Although Wheeler disclosed his interest in CH and abstained from voting on the loan approval, the loan was granted. PBS subsequently suffered losses when CH defaulted on the loan.
Issues that arose
The central issues in this case were:
1. Whether Wheeler breached his fiduciary duties to PBS by failing to act in the company’s best interests and for a proper purpose.
2. Whether mere disclosure of a conflict of interest and abstention from voting were sufficient to fulfill a director’s duties in situations involving potential conflicts.
Decision in Permanent Building Society v Wheeler
The Supreme Court of Western Australia held that Wheeler breached his fiduciary duties to PBS. The court emphasized that directors must not only disclose conflicts of interest but also take proactive steps to protect the company’s interests. In this instance, Wheeler’s disclosure and abstention were deemed insufficient. Given his knowledge of CH’s financial instability, Wheeler had a duty to ensure that PBS was fully informed of the risks associated with the loan. His failure to take such steps constituted a breach of his duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of PBS. He should have taken proactive steps to protect the company.
Significance
This case underscores the stringent obligations placed on company directors regarding conflicts of interest. Key takeaways include:
Proactive Duty: Directors must actively safeguard the company’s interests, especially when aware of potential risks. Simply disclosing a conflict and abstaining from related decisions may not suffice.
Proper Purpose: Directors are required to exercise their powers for legitimate corporate purposes. Engaging in transactions that serve personal interests or the interests of related entities can lead to breaches of duty. Wheeler failed in his duty to act for a proper purpose.
Objective Assessment: The determination of whether directors have acted appropriately involves an objective analysis of their conduct, considering what a reasonable person in their position would have done.
The judgment in Permanent Building Society v Wheeler serves as a cautionary tale for directors to diligently assess and address conflicts of interest, ensuring that their actions consistently align with the best interests of the company they serve.
List of references:
- https://www.irwinlegal.com.au/law-advice-wa/introduction-to-directors-duties/
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/2302-sample.pdf
- https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BondLawRw/1998/11.html
- https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1709502/13-Conflicteddirectors-whatisrequiredtoavoidabreachofdutyJnlEquity20142.pdf
- https://legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/browse/law-annuals/pdf/corporations-legislation-2014-key-section-annotation-example-thomson-reuters.pdf
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CORPORATE LAW: