Keymed v Hillman [2019] EWHC 485 (Ch)

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Renata, Maria, and Qi serve as directors for a small healthcare manufacturing firm facing a major product recall due to safety concerns. Seeking a quick resolution, the directors rely on a high-profile consultancy firm's recommendations about how to manage the recall, adjust product lines, and reassure stakeholders. The consultancy’s report, though detailed, arrives late, and the directors feel pressured to approve the proposals without question. Renata, worried about personal liability, wonders whether their reliance on the consultancy absolves them from further investigation. The board members debate how thoroughly they need to evaluate the consultancy’s findings before making a final decision.


Which of the following actions best demonstrates compliance with a director’s duty to exercise independent judgment while also responsibly using expert advice?

Introduction

Directors’ responsibilities, defined in company law, require clear action from those managing a company. Keymed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Ltd v Hillman [2019] EWHC 485 (Ch) offers a detailed examination of how directors must use their own judgment, especially when reviewing information and advice from others. This case explains the balance between using experts and the requirement for directors to decide independently in the company’s interests. The judgment confirms that while directors can seek external help, they remain accountable for results. This rule comes from the legal duty directors have to the company, which requires honesty and independent decision-making.

Directors’ Responsibilities and the Need for Independent Judgment

Company law requires directors to act in the company’s interests. This core rule means directors must base choices on their own evaluation. While seeking professional input is allowed and often necessary, directors cannot avoid their duty to review advice carefully and make their own decisions. Keymed v Hillman supports this principle, showing the court’s view that directors must actively assess information rather than accept recommendations without question.

Keymed v Hillman: Background and the Court’s Decision

Keymed v Hillman focused on a claim against directors for failing in their duties during a share repurchase. The directors heavily depended on financial advisors’ advice when approving the repurchase. The court ruled that while getting expert input was reasonable, the directors did not sufficiently review the details or form their own view on the transaction’s impact. The judgment stressed that directors cannot delegate their decision-making role to advisors.

The Duty to Review Advice Carefully

The High Court’s decision in Keymed v Hillman confirms directors must rigorously review specialist advice. This includes checking data, questioning conclusions, and asking for clarifications. Directors should not approve advice without weighing its effects on the company. This independent review is necessary to ensure decisions match the company’s interests, even when using expert opinions.

Using Advisors vs. Over-Dependence: Key Differences

The judgment in Keymed v Hillman distinguishes proper use of advisors from improper delegation of directorial duties. Directors may use others’ knowledge, especially in areas outside their experience. However, this use must be justified. Directors must understand the basis of the advice and form their own judgments. Following advice without personal evaluation violates their duties.

Steps Directors Should Follow

Keymed v Hillman provides practical measures for directors. It stresses keeping clear records of decision-making steps, including data examined, advice received, and reasons for decisions. These records can demonstrate directors’ active role. The case also states directors must understand the company’s operations and legal framework to assess advice properly and make informed choices. Seeking separate legal advice may be necessary.

Conclusion

Keymed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Ltd v Hillman [2019] EWHC 485 (Ch) advances understanding of directors’ duties, particularly the need for independent judgment. The case confirms that while using experts is acceptable, directors must still review advice thoroughly and decide independently. This responsibility arises from the duty to act in the company’s interests. The judgment clarifies the line between proper use of advisors and improper delegation, offering clear guidance for directors meeting legal standards. By actively reviewing advice and maintaining detailed records, directors can show their commitment to independent judgment and reduce risks. This case strengthens the principle that directors must use their own evaluation, even when collaborating with experts and governance systems.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal