We're still going with the James Hardie saga,
and the illfated board meeting of 15 February 2001 at which they
decided to shift their asbestos compensation fund to the
Netherlands and dud their asbestosis victims.
Now the High Court has weighed in and reinstated the right
outcome – the James Hardie directors breached their
duties when they approved an ASX release about the restructure
which was materially misleading to the market.
Unanimously, and quite grumpily, the Court overturned the NSW
Court of Appeal's finding that ASIC had not proved that the
directors did approve the ASX release at their board meeting
– notwithstanding that the minutes of the meeting
expressly said that they had done so, and that nobody who was at
the meeting was able to remember what happened. That is, the only
direct evidence was the minutes, and yet the Court of Appeal
decided they were wrong. The High Court said that's just
In terms of important legal points to come out of this,
that's pretty much it. The High Court has re-established
what we've all always understood, which is that a
contemporaneous written record of a meeting, particularly something
official like minutes, is evidence of the truth of what it says,
and will trump other evidence which is really just inference.
For companies, it's a simple truth that whoever drafts
the minutes is king, and directors would always be well advised to
actually read the draft minutes before they blithely approve them
at their next meeting. They will be forever stuck with whatever the
Meanwhile, the James Hardie directors now go back to the Court
of Appeal to find out what their punishment will be. Way back at
the first trial, the judge slotted them with big penalties and
disqualifications. That's probably what they're
still looking at.
We do not disclaim anything about this article. We're
quite proud of it really.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
An Australian government inquiry report published earlier this year recommended review of the Australian Franchising Code "… with a view to assessing the respective responsibilities of franchisors and franchisees...
Traditionally, Australian courts have held that shareholders alleging corporate contraventions of prohibitions on misleading conduct must demonstrate that they were aware of, and directly relied on, the corporate misconduct.
A Fixed Price Legal Risk Audit Review and Report on compliance and risk exposure from this legal change is available.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).