Originally Posted by
Kgmm77
Even if that was true (which I'd be surprised if it was, please refer me to the relevant article in the Act), that's why I said Goverment should legislate to protect consumers and force contingency into the Heathrow schedule.
Section 172 of CA 2006 covers directors duties:
172Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company's employees,
(c)the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
(2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.
(3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.
As the previous poster indicated, in general it is interpreted as acting in a way which maximises profit - but as you can see it's not explicit and therefore can be debated. For example:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2...-to-avoid-tax/