---

Company Law Reform Bill

If the sentence in lines 17 and 18 was not there, there would simply be a debate in the courtroom at the appropriate time on what ““aware”” meant in the words immediately preceding. The word ““aware”” means, or includes, that ““you ought to have been aware based on the following facts and matters””. It is presumably helpful that the presence of those words avoids that debate. There is some reciprocity in this provision. There is precisely similar wording in Clause 161(6)(b), where the state of knowledge or the awareness available to the other directors is tested in exactly the same way. It would not be appropriate to view subsection (5) in the abstract. It must be looked at in conjunction with subsection (6).