Business Judgment And The Courts
- Start date: 1 October 2016
- End date: 30 November 2018
- Funder: Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
- Primary investigator: 00919673
- Co-investigators: Professor Andrew Keay
- External co-investigators: Professor Terence Mcnulty University of Liverpool, Ms Abigail Stewart, University of Liverpool
Directors are rarely held legally accountable for decisions that have poor outcomes. A key reason is that courts have asserted that the exercise of director’s business judgment should be immune from judicial review. Thus classifying a decision as a business judgment provides directors with a powerful shield from accountability. Yet the meaning and boundaries of the concept of business judgment and the consequences of review/non-review have received little attention. The project aims to address this gap by:
- Establishing what is meant by business judgment
- Identifying how the courts apply this concept
- Assessing to what extent directors’ decisions in England and Wales should be subject to review by the courts.
Project award: £281,517
Hunting the Snark: Defining Business Judgement
Project Paper shortlisted for Award!
We are delighted that the paper titled: ‘The Concept of Business Judgment’ co-authored by Professor Andrew Keay and Professor Joan Loughrey was shortlisted for the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) 2017 Best Paper Prize.
On 29 November 2018 the End of Project Meeting was held in London with directors, shareholder groups, legal practitioners, the judiciary and policy makers present amongst others.
Download The End of Project Report
Download the Governance report
For further information please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.