Directors' duties — acting with a view to the best interests of a Jersey company
In a helpful judgment, the Jersey Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the Royal Court in Pirrwitz v AI Airports International Ltd and PI Power International Ltd  JRC 017. In the process, the Court of Appeal has clarified the duty of a director under article 74(1)(a) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, which is to ‘act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company’. This, the court confirmed, is a subjective duty: the best interests of the company is a matter for the directors to determine, not the court.
The court noted, however, that directors are subject to other duties and, in particular, they must exercise their powers for the purposes for which they were conferred. In contrast to the duty under article 74(1)(a), this is an objective duty — so that a director can be in breach of it notwithstanding his or her honest belief that that what was done was in the company’s best interest.
This briefing considers the decision in relation to the duties of directors. The judgment is also of interest for its discussion of the remuneration of directors and in particular the scope of provisions in articles of association under which directors may be remunerated. That aspect of the case is considered in a separate briefing…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mourant Ozannes briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mourant Ozannes
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mourant Ozannes
The Royal Court of Jersey has concluded that it has power under its inherent jurisdiction to sanction a compromised settlement of litigation reached by the plaintiff on behalf of a minor.
A private trust company is a privately owned corporate trustee whose sole purpose is to act as trustee to a trust or group of ‘connected’ trusts.