data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bda69/bda69fb0d3265e5630ce188528a52baf265376b3" alt=""
Robert.
"... although I have sympathy with Lord Sumption’s view that 'but for' causation offers a single, simple test, which it might be possible or even preferable to substitute for references to the principal or primary purpose, I am not persuaded that we can or should safely undertake what all parties consider would be 'a new development' of company law, without having heard argument".Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge had agreed with the majority view in the High Court of Australia decision Whitehouse v Carlton House Pty (1987) 162 CLR 285, in which it was stated (at 294): "As a matter of logic and principle, the preferable view would seem to be that, regardless of whether the impermissible purpose was the dominant one or but one of a number of significantly contributing causes, the allotment will be invalidated if the impermissible purpose was causative in the sense that, but for its presence, 'the power would not have been exercised". Elsewhere in his opinion, and less controversially, Lord Sumption explained the purpose of the proper purpose rule (now found in section 171 of the Companies Act 2006)(para. [37]):
The rule that the fiduciary powers of directors may be exercised only for the purposes for which they were conferred is one of the main means by which equity enforces the proper conduct of directors. It is also fundamental to the constitutional distinction between the respective domains of the board and the shareholders. These considerations are particularly important when the company is in play between competing groups seeking to control or influence its affairs".A video recording of Lord Sumption explaining the court's decision is available below (this does not give an indication of the disagreement noted above):
I believe we will be in a position very soon to finalize our rule to provide greater transparency in execution of the audit, through identification of the engagement partner and other accounting firms that participate in the audit. We should also, in 2016, see a new proposal to expand the standard form auditor's report, as well as new proposals on audit procedures related to using the work of other auditors, using the work of specialists, and auditing accounting estimates, including fair value measurements. We will also continue our outreach to audit committees in 2016, including by looking for ways to help them be effective in overseeing the audit, for example, through wider use and continued evaluation of appropriate audit quality indicators".