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).
Company Law Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Grabiner
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 9 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c334-5GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:31:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299560
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299560
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299560