Table of contentsIntroductionAsden Develpoments Pty Ltd (in liq) v DinosFactsRights violatedMeasuresProcedureResultsCourt decisionConclusionIntroductionIn every company, certain individual agencies act on behalf of the company and they are known as directors of the company. But these managers do not necessarily have to be a director or employee of the company every time. Every officer of the company is expected to carry out his duties within the law. Often these agents commit acts that exceed the bounds of legal expectations set out in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Although these acts may be committed without any malicious intent, action can still be taken against such acts of a company officer. It is not necessary for such acts by a director to have a negative impact on the company, but such directors will be held liable for failing to fulfill their obligations under sections 180, 181 and 182 of the Companies Act 2001. This report discusses one of Australia's landmark cases entitled "Asden Develpoments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dinos (No. 3) [2016] FCA 788", and sets out the facts, proceedings and decision rendered by the court regarding this matter. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Asden Develpoments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dinos The case presented caused a dispute between Asden Developments Pty Ltd, a company which was in the process of being liquidated (hereinafter referred to as "Asden") and Mr Dinoris , he is one of the liquidators. In this case, the issue in dispute was an act of Mr. Dinoris and his co-appointed Mr. Combis (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Mr. Dinoris"), which arose when the company changed its current liquidator and named another person on this designation, named Mr. Clout. The main problem in the case was the fact that some company funds were transferred from the company account, but to whom they were paid it was not possible to trace them. Mr Dinoris, as liquidator of the company, did not ask questions about these funds to the sole director of the company who was Ms Nichols. In addition to this, there was also a boat registered in the name of Asden, which sold but Mr Dinoris did not supervise this sale and he also had no idea of ​​the sale value of the boat being transferred (Maddocks, 2016). In accordance with the requirements of sections 180 and 181 of the Companies Act 2001, a director is expected to carry out their duties as efficiently as possible and in good faith towards the company (Maisto, 2009). But in the case cited, Mr. Dinoris failed to do so, and Asden therefore brought action against Mr. Dinoris. Dinoris was appointed liquidator of the company on December 22, 2010. Prior to his appointment a week ago, funds worth $236,500 had been transferred from Asden's bank account. Later, these funds were reported as missing funds as no one could trace them to where they were transferred. Here, as an officer and liquidator of Asden, Mr. Dinoris had the legal duty and responsibility to ask Ms. Nichols for the account into which these missing funds were transferred, in addition to being a director and sole shareholder of the company, she was also a signatory to the account from which these funds were debited, but Mr. Dinoris did not ask Ms. Nichols any questions. Asden made another allegation against Mr. Dinoris because there had been a sale of the boat to a third party, but Mr. Dinoris did not handle that sale properly. Furthermore, he had no information on the distribution of the amount that Asdenreceived in consideration of the aforementioned sale. Although Mr. Dinoris appointed a sales agent to handle this sale, it was his duty to keep at least a record of the said transaction. Violated Obligations We observed a total of 120 participants from Texas State University. Students were observed during their daily classroom lessons. Observers were asked to observe only the students seated starting from right to left, in 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 them from taking notes in class. The independent variable is cell phone use, which was defined as being actively engaged and looking at your phone for more than 5 seconds or more during a 5-minute interval. There were two variables, cell phone use and cell phone use. Participants who looked at or touched their phone for more than 5 seconds were categorized as “Cell Phone Use.” Participants categorized 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 while typing or writing visibly. information given in the course. There were two levels: taking notes and not taking notes. Participants who were actively writing or typing notes were classified as taking notes and those included in the not taking notes category were participants who were not writing or typing notes. Procedure The type of study used was a naturalistic observation. The observers sat in their usual seats and let the surrounding seats fill up randomly. In the possible case of empty seats, the observer was asked to start the observations closest to him from right to left, then in front from right to left and the participant's final option would be directly in front. Approximately 10-15 minutes after class begins, 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 was attentive by actively typing or taking notes. Results For the results, a Chi-square test of independence was used to determine the relationship between cell phone use and the impact on attention. The tested variables showed a statically significant relationship, X2(1, N = 120) = 21.89, p =. 001 (see Figure 1). Participants classified as non-cell phone users were more likely to be attentive while taking notes than those who were cell phone users who did not take notes. Sections 180 of the Companies Act 2001 define that an officer of the company must carry out his or her duties with the required degree of responsibility and care. An officer's roles may vary depending on the position, but the essential requirement of the position is his or her best judgment (Legalvision, 2015). Section 181 of the Companies Act 2001 communicates the form of intention required of the directors of the company. This article states that a manager of a company must always work there is an excellent belief. This section required the responsible directors and officers of the corporation to play their role within the corporation for a practical purpose. This article confirms the aspect that must be followed by a manager of a companywhen making any decision or carrying out any commercial action (Lo, 2015). All officers and directors of the company must fulfill their duties in favor of the company, e.g. it is in the best interest and for a significant cause (Federal Register of Legislation, 2018). Section 182 of the Companies Act 2001 also sets out the duties and obligations of the directors, employees and officers of the company. This article requires that the aforementioned individuals must not misuse their title within the company and must not take unfair advantage of their position (Austlii, 2018). In the case of Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn (2011) NSWSC 479, it was held that a director as well as every officer of the company must carry out their duties under section 180, just like a responsible person. In carrying out their duties, these officers must be aware of all possible outcomes of their acts and actions. Reason why duties were violated? In the assigned case, as liquidator, Mr Dinoris was expected, under section 180 of the Companies Act 2001, to deal with every financial transaction of asden. While in Asden, valuable funds were missed and Mr Dinoris keeps no record of them. He also did not ask Ms. Nichols about the authorization of these funds. Mr. Dinoris assumes that even by questioning Ms. Nichols about these funds she must not be able to answer, but that cannot be a proper basis for pleading guilty. So here Mr Dinoris has not performed his duties as required by the Companies Act 2001. As Mr Dinoris has been appointed as an asden officer he must be performing his services in a proper manner and must have interviewed Ms Nichols . , regardless of whether the answer is available with it or not. Furthermore, Mr. Dinoris also failed to adequately review the transaction for the sale of the boat, which was owned by Asden. As Mr Dinoris worked as liquidator of asden, pursuant to section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001, he was responsible for reviewing and monitoring each transaction of asden as a responsible agent (Mills Oakley, 2016) . This took place 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 diligently.Court decisionIn the case under consideration, asden requested the court to initiate proceedings against Mr. Dinoris, because he did not perform his duties appropriately and responsibly in the course of his work. The court, while giving its judgment, said that Mr Dinoris had breached his duties under section 180 of the Companies Act 2001. However, it was held that due to the negligence of Mr. Dinoris in respect of his obligations, Asden suffered no loss. No penalty will therefore be imposed on Mr. Dinoris. The court also ruled that even if Mr. Dinoris asked Ms. Nichols a few questions, she would not be able to clarify anything regarding the missing funds. Furthermore, in relation to the boat sale transaction, the court stated that Mr. Dinoris had appointed a sales agent to manage this transaction; he was no longer required to administer the above operation (Jade, 2018)Impact of the decision of the case on the operation of Australian companiesThis case does not involve a director of a company. This case highlights the fact that an officer, whether a director or liquidator of a company, is also liable for the purposes of section 180 of the Companies Act 2001. Prior to this case, companies and their other leaders wrongly believed.