IndexIntroductionAsden Develpoments Pty Ltd(in liq) v DinosFactsDuties breachedMeasuresProcedureResultsCourt decisionConclusionIntroductionIn every company, there are some individual bodies that act on behalf of the company and they are known as officers of the company. But such officers need not always be directors or employees of the company. Every officer of the company is expected to carry out his duties under the aegis of the law. Many times, such officials commit acts that fall outside the bounds of the legal expectations set out in the Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth). While these acts may be done without bad faith intentions, it is still possible to file a proceeding against such acts of a company officer. Such actions of an officer need not have a negative impact on the company, however these officers are liable for breaching their duties under section 180,181 and 182 of the Corporations Act, 2001. This report addresses one of Australia's leading cases entitled " Asden Developments Pty Ltd(in liq) v Dinos (No. 3) [2016] FCA 788" and summarizes the facts, proceedings and the decision given by the court in merit in this case. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayAsden Developments Pty Ltd(in liq) v DinosThe case presented brought about a discussion between Asden Developments Pty Ltd, a company which was under the liquidation process (hereinafter “Asden”) and Mr. Dinoris, is one of the liquidators . In this case, the subject of the dispute was an act of Mr. Dinoris together with his co-appointee Mr. Combis (hereinafter jointly referred to as “Mr. Dinoris”), which came to light when the company changed its current liquidator and appointed another person with this designation, referred to as Mr. Clout. The main issue in the case was the fact that some of the company's funds had been transferred from the company's account but to whom they had been paid was not traceable. Mr Dinoris, as liquidator of the company, did not request such funds from the sole director of the company who was Mrs Nichols. In addition to this, there was also a boat registered in the name of Asden, which was sold but Mr Dinoris did not supervise this sale and had no idea of ​​the sale value of the boat (Maddocks, 2016). According to the requirements of Section 180 and 181 of the Corporations Act 2001, an officer is expected to carry out their duties in the most effective manner and in good faith of the company (Maisto, 2009). But in the case mentioned, Mr. Dinoris failed to do so, so Asden filed a lawsuit against Mr. Dinoris.FactsMr. Dinoris was appointed liquidator of the company on 22 December 2010. Within a week of his appointment, some funds worth $236,500 were transferred from Asden's bank account. Later, these funds were declared as missing funds as no one could trace them to the location where they were transferred. Here, being the liquidating officer of Asden, it was Mr. Dinoris' statutory duty and responsibility to ask Mrs. Nichols, into which account such missing funds were transferred, as well as being a director and sole shareholder of the company, she was also the signatory to the account from which the funds were debited, but Mr. Dinoris did not ask Ms. Nichols any questions. Asden made another accusation against Mr Dinoris, as there had been a sale of boat to a third party, but Mr Dinoris did not deal properly with this sale. He also had no information on the distribution of the amount Asden received in consideration of the abovesale. Although Mr. Dinoris appointed a sales agent to deal with this sale, yet it was his duty to maintain at least a record of the said transaction. Duties Violated We observed a total of 120 participants from Texas State University. Students were observed during daily classroom lessons. Observers were asked to observe only the seated students starting from right to left, front from right to left, and finally directly in front. The observation tactic was used to determine which students to observe first. Measures Observers observed participants to see if cell phone use distracted students from taking notes in class. The independent variable is cell phone use, defined as being actively engaged and looking at the phone for 5 seconds or more during the 5-minute interval. There were two variables, cell phone use and non-cell phone use. Participants who looked at or touched their phone for more than 5 seconds were classified as using cell phone. Participants classified as non-cell phone use were those who did not touch or look at their cell phone for at least 5 seconds or more. The dependent variable is attention, which was defined as taking notes by visibly typing or writing information provided in lecture. There were two levels: taking notes and not taking notes. Those participants who actively wrote or typed notes were classified in the “note-taking” category, and those who were included in the “not note-taking” category were participants who did not write or type notes. Procedure The type of study used was a naturalistic observation. Observers sat in their regular seats and let the surrounding seats fill up randomly. In the possible circumstance of empty seats, the observer was asked to start the observations closest to him from right to left, then front from right to left and the participant's last option would be directly in front. After about 10-15 minutes from At the beginning of the lesson the observer would observe a maximum of 2 students for 5 minutes each. During the 5 minutes, the observer recorded whether the participant looked at or touched their phone for more than 5 seconds or paid attention by actively typing or writing notes. Results For the results, a Chi-square test of independence was used to determine the relationship between cell phone use and impact on attention. The tested variables showed a statistically significant relationship, X2(1, N = 120) = 21.89, p =. 001 (see Figure 1). Participants classified as non-cell phone users were more likely to pay attention by taking notes than those who were cell phone users who did not take notes. Sections 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 defines that an officer of the company must carry out his duties with the necessary responsibility and care. The roles of an officer may vary depending on the position, but the essential requirement of his office is his best judgment (Legalvision, 2015). Section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001 communicates the required form of intention of officers of the company. This section ascertains that an officer of a company must always work within it is an excellent belief. This section provided that the directors and responsible officers of the company should carry out their role in the company for a convenient purpose. This section confirms the aspect that must be followed by an officer of a company while making any decision or conducting any business action (Lo, 2015). All the officers and director of the company must follow their duties for the favor of the company, for isin the best interests and for a significant cause (Federal Register of Legislation, 2018). Section 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 also defines the duties and obligations of the director, employee and officer of the company. This section requires that the aforementioned persons do not misuse their designation within the company and do not take undue advantage of their position (Austlii, 2018). In the case of Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn (2011) NSWSC 479, it was held that a director and every officer of the company must comply with their duties under section 180 in the same way as a responsible person. In carrying out their duties, such officials must be aware of every possible outcome of their actions and actions. Why were duties breached? In the assigned case, as liquidator, Mr Dinoris was expected under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 to deal with any financial transactions of Asden. In Asden, however, valuable funds were lost and Mr Dinoris keeps no record of them. He also did not ask any questions of Ms. Nichols regarding the liquidation of those funds. It is assumed on the part of Mr. Dinoris that even after asking Ms Nichols about these funds, she was unable to respond, but this cannot be an appropriate ground for appealing. So, in this case, Mr. Dinoris has failed to perform his duties as required of him under the Corporations Act, 2001. Since Mr. Dinoris has been designated as an Asden officer, he must perform his services in a proper manner and must have questioned Ms. Nichols, regardless of whether his response was available to you or not. Furthermore, Mr Dinoris also did not adequately evaluate the sale transaction of the boat, which was owned by Asden. As Mr Dinoris worked as the liquidator of Asden, under Section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001, it was his duty to review and control every transaction of Asden as a responsible officer (Mills Oakley, 2016). It occurred in the case of Macks V Viscariello, (2017) SASCFC 172 It is assumed that if an individual acts as an officer of a company, he must be aware of his role in the organization and must also follow delegated responsibilities with due diligence. Court decision In the present case, Asden asked the court to initiate proceedings against Mr Dinoris, as he did not perform his duties appropriately and responsibly in carrying out his work. The Court, while passing judgment, held that Mr. Dinoris was in breach of his duties under section 180 of the Corporations Act, 2001. However, it was held that due to Mr. Dinoris' negligence towards his duties, Asden suffered no losses. Therefore no sanctions will be imposed on Mr. Dinoris. The court further found that even if Mr Dinoris had asked Ms Nichols some questions, she would not have been able to clarify anything relating to the missing funds. Furthermore, in the matter of the boat sales transaction, the Court stated that Mr. Dinoris appointed a sales agent to manage this transaction; was no longer obliged to administer the above-mentioned agreement (Jade, 2018) Impact of the case decision on the business of Australian companies This case does not involve the director of a company. This case highlights the fact that an officer, whether director or liquidator of a company, is equally liable for the purposes of section 180 of the Corporations Act, 2001. Prior to this case, it was a misunderstanding between companies and their other officers that only company directors will be required to carry out their duties pursuant to.