Abstract
This dissertation compares the legal frameworks for directors’ disqualification in South Africa and Australia. It identifies and examines key differences and similarities in the disqualification systems employed in these two jurisdictions. The study evaluates the effectiveness of each regime in achieving stated policy objectives of protecting the business community, shareholders, and creditors from misconduct by company directors. Significant differences are found in the grounds for disqualification, the disqualification process, and the consequences of being disqualified in South Africa versus Australia. The South African system takes a more restrictive approach overall. Based on comparative analysis, law reform proposals are made to improve South Africa’s disqualification framework, drawing on some best practice features of Australia’s approach.