The parties did not know one another, it seems, but a company employee asked the customer whether he could assist. Arguably, the benefit was conferred on the director by reason of his being a director with the customer assuming, presumably, that there would be some advantage to him in doing the favour, even if he did not know the director personally.
The director did not disclose the arrangement (which he considered to be an entirely private matter) to the company which subsequently sued him for breach of the no-conflict rule. Having lost at first instance, the director appealed unsuccessfully. The matter predated the CA 2006 but, applying the statute, the situation may be interpreted as a benefit from a third party conferred on the director by reason of his being a director in breach of s 176.