本篇代写-Dr Dawes违反《2001年公司法》的行为调查和报告，以及随后的民事处罚行动。文中也讨论了可能的防御。如果被告董事或办公室的行为符合《2001年公司法》(Cth)第180(2)条规定的法定商业判断规则，则可免除责任。首先，他们应该为公司的必要目的而做出正确的判断或真诚的行为，不应该对该主题有任何实质的兴趣。他们还应该相信，他们有必要采取符合公司最大利益的行动。“董事或管理人员认为判决符合公司的最大利益是理性的，除非这种信念在他们的位置上没有任何理性的人会持有”(Harris, 2008)。现在，董事的行为不是为了公司的最大利益，而是为了他们自己的利益，考虑到他们的地位和对公司的义务，理性的人不能认为他们是理性的。所以他们不能得到救济。
Relief from liability is available to a defendant director or office if they have behaved according to the statutory business judgment rule as provided in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 180(2). Primarily they should have acted in good judgement or good faith for a necessary purpose for the company and should not have had any material interest in the subject. They should also believe that it was necessary for them to act in such a way as it was in the best interests of the company. “The director’s or officer’s belief that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation is a rational one unless the belief is one that no reasonable person in their position would hold” (Harris, 2008). Now the actions of the director are not in the best interests of the company but has been done for their own profit and cannot be considered by a rational person to be reasonable given their position and obligations to the company. So they cannot be granted relief.
Applying Section 1317S, the court could provide relief if it has reason to believe that the director has acted honestly. The person’s appointment for position would also be considered here. However, as seen in this case scenario, the director’s appointment does not excuse them from their duties, and in fact makes it necessary for them to obey their duties and responsibilities to the company. In the case of Mrs Duck, relief might be possible if it could be proved that Mrs Duck was not aware of how the intelligence came to Mr. Huckenfusser.
Applying section s1317E, penalties are applicable for declaration of contravention, penalties and fines. The ASIC can file this with the court and the court can order pecuniary penalty to the amount of $200,000 under section 1317G, only if contravention declaration is made under section 1317E. There are no damages to the corporation. Hence compensation pursuant to section 1317H will not be applicable here. Because of these contraventions, the Court could disqualify the director from managing a corporation again.
The report undertook the investigation of and reporting on breach of section 183 of the Corporation Act (Cth) 2001 against Dr Dawes, Mr. Foster, Mr. Huckenfusser and Mrs. Duck and subsequent Civil Penalty action only. The defenses possible are also discussed in context.