If you are a director of a Jersey company, whether you are a sole director or you have a larger company, your directors duties are in essence the same.
The Law* says this:-
‘A director, in exercising the director’s powers and discharging directors duties, shall:
There have been numerous decisions of the Jersey courts about these two points and as a director you should have the court’s comment in mind when carrying out directors duties.
In order to understand this aspect of the directors duties, it is necessary to define what is meant by the best interests of the company.
Companies are comprised of shareholders, directors, employees and agents and these respective groups’ interests may conflict and compete over time. The guiding principle is generally taken from the English authority Gaiman v National Association of Medical Health  Ch 317 (England and Wales), which states that when acting, directors should consider the future of the company and balance any short-term benefits against the long-term interests of present, as well as prospective members as a whole. Put more simply, a director should consider the collective interests of present and potential future shareholders in the company.
As regards whether any act is itself in the best interests of the company, the key authority is the English case of Charterbridge Corporation v Lloyds  Ch 62. The court held that what is in the best interests of the company is that which an intelligent and honest person in the position of a director would believe to be for the benefit of the company (taking into account all the circumstances in relation to the relevant transaction).
It should also be noted that all the acts of the director must be intra vires. Essentially, this means that a director must exercise the powers available to them for the purposes for which they were intended. This stands even if the director feels that the relevant act would benefit the company. The powers of a director must always be used to benefit the company, fulfil its objects or be used in a manner that is reasonably incidental to the business.
Further, directors should be aware that their duty to the company persists post-resignation in certain circumstances. Should a director, who has resigned from a company, use knowledge gained from his prior position for personal enrichment, he may be called to account for this benefit, to the company of which he was a director.
You, as a director, must not only act honestly and in good faith, but must also exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person.
Historically, the test was simply that as set out in the statute, which effectively set a very low bar. An illustration of this is provided in the case of Re Brazilian Rubber Plantations  1 Ch 425. There were three directors of the company, one who was deaf, one who knew nothing of the relevant business, and a third who liked the other two directors and took up the position as a favour. None of them was held accountable for the subsequent failure of the company.
That original test remained until as recently as 1989, until the decision in Dorchester Finance v Stebbings and Others  BCLC 498. A group of non-executive directors delegated the management of the company to an executive director and provided pre-signed cheques for his use. Following the misuse of company funds, all directors were sued and each of the non-executive directors was held liable for negligence. The court altered the relevant test and declared that from that point on directors must show such skill and care as may be reasonably expected from persons of their knowledge and experience, take such care as an ordinary person might be expected to in the conduct of their own affairs, and exercise any and all powers in good faith in the best interests of the company. The courts can therefore consider the particular skills and experience of a director in considering whether or not the directors duties have been met.
Should your actions as a director be in breach of your directors duties, you may be liable for any losses incurred and be required to compensate the company. Should such a transaction personally benefit you as a director, it may be made void.
If you, as a director are intending to perform an act and are concerned of committing a breach, Article 74(2) of the Companies Law may provide some protection. If all of the members of the company (including those who hold shares which typically carry no voting rights) authorise or ratify the act or omission of the director, the offending act is no longer a breach of the duty, provided that the company will still be able to discharge its liabilities as they fall due. It should be noted that full disclosure of the relevant act or omission is essential for any such ratification to be valid.
It is essential that directors always keep the duty to the company in mind and that they are upfront in declaring any interests they may have in transactions to ensure that their duty is not breached. If a director is ever concerned about the consequences of any act, they should seek guidance, notwithstanding the possibility of a retrospective ratification of their decisions.
* Article 74(1) of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991
Carl Parslow | Partner | Jersey Business Legal Services
For advice, assistance or further information please do not hesitate to call 630530 or email us on email@example.com
Parslows Jersey can help
We know that Jersey businesses have to carefully manage their budget. If we consider a client can resolve a matter without the services of one of our lawyers or if we can provide succinct advice in the right direction, we will say so. Whether we’re advising a Jersey start-up company or an established Jersey business, we always start and end with what is in your commercial interest.
Parslows Jersey Business Legal Services team is small enough to care but big enough to trust.