According to the case analysis, the judiciary has determined that Mr. Whitlam had violated three section 232 (6), 232 (2) and 250 A) of the Australian corporation Act 2001 by his negligence in endorsing the official papers of the poll in regards to the meeting. As per the decision made by the board committee. Mr. Whitlam was elected as the proxy vote upon the resolution 6. The court had found out that he had breached section 181910 of the Corporation Act 2001. It was later discovered during the period of revision of minute of a board meeting that was conducted by NIGL insurance company. Nevertheless, the court came to know that Mr. Whitlam had not acted dishonestly throughout the revision of minute meeting. Under the section 1317s920 Act, a discretion was deliberated and exercised in order to make Mr. Whitlam relief entirely from the breach of the liability. …show more content…
Whitlam was discovered dispute by signing in the initials of his names on the poll documents which has completed the specification of the writing. Various type of cases was mentioned by Mr. Whitlam in accordance to support the statement. According to Klettner et.al(2014), the court had determined to refuse the following cases that were decided by the circumstances of written devices for not displaying the right signature of Mr. Whitlam. According to this case study, it was noticed that Mr. Whitlam had declared regarding the main role of the chairman in the board meeting of a company. The power and responsibilities that are given to the directors and chairman are distinct from one another. In addition, he claimed that he wouldn’t be able to assist for the position of active director in the board meeting. Thereby, this breach should not be deliberated as director duty breach (Young and