FEATURES OF THE LEGAL REGIME OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES ARISING BETWEEN A COMPANY AND ITS OFFICERS: THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51989/NUL.2024.5.19Keywords:
fiduciary duties, companies, officers, corporate governance, United Kingdom.Abstract
The article examines the features of the legal regime of fiduciary duties arising between a company and its officers, using the example of the United Kingdom. It is determined that fiduciary duties are key instrument for ensuring proper governance and protecting the interests of the company and its shareholders. It is established that fiduciary duties impose obligations on company officers to act in the best interests of the company, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure honesty and transparency in their actions. The article explores and analyses that in the United Kingdom, fiduciary duties of company officers are defined by a range of case law precedents. It is established that the primary legislative act regulating these issues is the Companies Act 2006, which defines the main duties of directors, including the duty to act within their powers, carry out activities with due diligence, avoid conflicts of interest, and not use their position for personal gain. Based on the analysis of case law in the United Kingdom, the key aspects of fiduciary duty compliance are highlighted, as well as typical violations and the liability for their breach. It is determined that judicial practice demonstrates a strict approach to assessing the actions of company officers and their liability for violations of fiduciary duties. It is found that the British model is one of the most progressive, as it ensures a high level of protection for the interests of the company and its shareholders. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding and properly fulfilling fiduciary duties by company officers to ensure stable and effective corporate governance. Based on the research, the author concludes that the example of the United Kingdom can be useful for improving the legal regulation of fiduciary duties, particularly in Ukraine. An important aspect noted in the conclusions is the possibility of adapting the best practices of the British model to enhance the protection of the interests of Ukrainian companies and their shareholders, as well as to improve the level of corporate governance in Ukraine.
References
The Companies Act, 2006. URL: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents.
Chirnside v Fay, Supreme Court of New Zealand, 2006. URL: https://www.scribd.com/document/595845821/5B2007-5D-P-N-L-R-6.
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp, High Court of Australia, 1984. URL: https://jade.io/article/67147.
Industrial Development Consultants Ltd. v Cooley, 1972. URL: https://www.scribd.com/document/691512792/443-Industrial-Development-Consultants-Ltd-v-Cooley-1.
Phipps v Boardman, 1967. URL: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8ca60d03e7f57ecd789.
Hilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood, United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions, 2005. URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/hilton-1.htm.
British Midland Tool Limited v Midland International Tooling Limited, 2003. URL: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff76860d03e7f57eac385.
Mason A.F. Themes and Prospects. Finn (Ed.), Essays in Equity. Sydney: Law Book Company, 1985.
Henry Williams Ltd v Cotton, England and Wales High Court, 2022. URL: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/62ab7974b50db9b9d68ec19c.
Black v Davies, England and Wales High Court, 2005. URL: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71c60d03e7f57ea7aa0.
Ciban Management Corp v Citco (BVI) Ltd, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 2020. URL: http://surl.li/samjx.