212:. It was the kind of thing which could happen to any busy man, although, as I have said, this is not enough to excuse it. But I think it is also relevant that in 1986, with the company solvent and indeed prosperous, the only persons whose interests he was foreseeably putting at risk by not reading the form were himself and his wife. Mr D'Jan certainly acted honestly. For the purposes of sec. 727 I think he acted reasonably and I think he ought fairly to be excused for some, though not all, of the liability which he would otherwise have incurred. Mr D'Jan has proved as an unsecured creditor in the sum of ÂŁ102,913. He has been paid an interim dividend of 40p in the pound and the liquidator has paid a further dividend of 20p but withheld payment to Mr D'Jan pending the resolution of these proceedings. In my view, having been responsible for the additional shortfall in respect of unsecured creditors, I do not think that he should be allowed any further participation in competition with ordinary trade creditors. On the other hand, I do not think it would be fair to ask him to return what he has received or make a further contribution out of his own pocket to the company's assets. I therefore declare that Mr D'Jan is liable to compensate the company for the loss caused by his breach of duty in an amount not exceeding any unpaid dividends to which he would otherwise be entitled as an unsecured creditor.
167:
this often happens. But that does not mean that it is not negligent. People often take risks in circumstances in which it was not necessary or reasonable to do so. If the risk materialises, they may have to pay a penalty. I do not say that a director must always read the whole of every document which he signs. If he signs an agreement running to 60 pages of turgid legal prose on the assurance of his solicitor that it accurately reflects the board's instructions, he may well be excused from reading it all himself. But this was an extremely simple document asking a few questions which Mr D'Jan was the best person to answer. By signing the form, he accepted that he was the person who should take responsibility for its contents. In my view, the duty of care owed by a director at common law is accurately stated in sec. 214(4) of the
Insolvency Act 1986. It is the conduct of:
200:, in which the action alleged to be negligent was specifically mandated by the shareholders, neither Mr nor Mrs D'Jan gave any thought to the way in which the proposal had been filled in. Mr D'Jan did not realise that he had given a wrong answer until the insurance company repudiated. By that time the company was in liquidation. In my judgment the Multinational principle requires that the shareholders should have, whether formally or informally, mandated or ratified the act in question. It is not enough that they probably would have ratified if they had known or thought about it before the liquidation removed their power to do so.
204:
he acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. It may seem odd that a person found to have been guilty of negligence, which involves failing to take reasonable care, can ever satisfy a court that he acted reasonably. Nevertheless, the section clearly contemplates that he may do so and it follows that conduct may be reasonable for the purposes of sec. 727 despite amounting to lack of reasonable care at common law.
208:
someone else's. And although for the purposes of the law of negligence the company is a separate entity to which Mr D'Jan owes a duty of care which cannot vary according to the number of shares he owns, I think that the economic realities of the case can be taken into account in exercising the discretion under sec. 727. His breach of duty in failing to read the form before signing was not
154:, that shareholders acting by consensus bind the company's actions, his actions were ratified by the company and he should not be liable. Hoffmann LJ held that actual ratification is required, not just a likelihood that shareholders would ratify. However, owning 99 shares was relevant to the court's exercise of discretion to relieve directors for breaches of duty under section 727 of the
136:, sitting as a judge of first instance, held that failing even to read the form was negligent even though it may be common practice, but Mr D'Jan's liability should be reduced because as majority shareholder and debtor it was primarily his own money that he risked, rather than other people's. The duty of care owed by directors in Section 214 of the
193:
the company. If she had known about the way he signed the form and it was too late to put the matter right, the chances are that she would also have approved. She could hardly have brought a derivative action to sue her husband for negligence because he could have procured the passing of a resolution absolving himself from liability.
203:
It follows that Mr D'Jan is in principle liable to compensate the company for his breach of duty. But sec. 727 of the
Companies Act 1985 gives the court a discretionary power to relieve a director wholly or in part from liability for breaches of duty, including negligence, if the court considers that
192:
Ch 258. Mr D'Jan held 99 of the 100 issued ordinary shares and Mrs D'Jan held the other. Mr D'Jan must be taken to have authorised the wrong answer in the proposal because he signed it himself. As for Mrs D'Jan, she had never been known to object to anything which her husband did in the management of
166:
Nevertheless I think that in failing even to read the form, Mr D'Jan was negligent. Mr Russen said that the standard of care which directors owe to their companies is not very exacting and signing forms without reading them is something a busy director might reasonably do. I accept that in real life,
162:
Both Mr D'Jan and Mr
Shenyuz are highly intelligent men who gave their evidence with confidence and the conflict is not easy to resolve. But I prefer the evidence of Mr D'Jan. He did not strike me as a man who would fill in his own forms. I think he would have wanted Mr Shenyuz to earn his commission
104:
Without reading it, Mr D'Jan signed a change to an insurance policy which was erroneously filled out by his insurance broker, a Mr Tarik
Shenyuz. He did not read it before he signed, and it contained a mistake, which was that the answer 'no' was given to the question of whether in the past he had
207:
In my judgment, although Mr D'Jan's 99 per cent holding of shares is not sufficient to sustain a
Multinational defence, it is relevant to the exercise of the discretion under sec. 727 . It may be reasonable to take a risk in relation to your own money which would be unreasonable in relation to
150:
187:
Mr Russen said that nevertheless the company could not complain of the breach of duty because it is a principle of company law that an act authorised by all the shareholders is in law the act of the company: see
158:(now section 1157 of the Companies Act 2006) because it 'may be reasonable to take a risk in relation to your own money which would be unreasonable in relation to someone else's'. His judgment went as follows.
183:
Both on the objective test and, having seen Mr D'Jan, on the subjective test, I think that he did not show reasonable diligence when he signed the form. He was therefore in breach of his duty to the company.
175:(a) the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the same functions as are carried out by that director in relation to the company, and
239:
322:
599:
589:
117:
sued Mr D'Jan to recoup the lost funds on behalf of the company's creditors (who together were owed ÂŁ500,000). They alleged both negligence and
352:
604:
552:
231:
569:
327:
163:
by attending to these matters and I accept that he signed in the expectation that Mr
Shenyuz would have completed the form correctly.
476:
433:
106:
299:
133:
54:
148:). Because Mr D'Jan held 99 shares and his wife 1 out of the 100, Mr D'Jan pleaded that in accordance with the principle of the
109:, could refuse to pay up when a fire at the company’s Cornwall premises destroyed £174,000 of stock. The company had gone into
594:
506:
366:
376:
361:
357:
536:
371:
308:
516:
429:
481:
337:
223:
460:
456:
438:
29:
442:
410:
292:
85:
66:
557:
137:
122:
511:
491:
451:
415:
406:
397:
155:
145:
93:
89:
424:
105:'been director of any company which went into liquidation'. That meant the insurance company,
496:
447:
419:
401:
246:
209:
114:
521:
381:
285:
190:
Multinational Gas and
Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd
151:
Multinational Gas and
Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd
113:
by the time that Mr D'Jan had realised that the form had been incorrectly completed. The
583:
486:
251:
531:
501:
88:
of care and skill, whose main precedent is now codified under
Section 174 of the
332:
118:
110:
81:
526:
141:
347:
342:
277:
178:(b) the general knowledge, skill and experience that that director has.”
227:
2 Ch 100 (The "Marquess of Bute's Case") an older case on the subject
281:
240:
Bishopsgate
Investment Management Ltd v Maxwell (No 2)
545:
469:
390:
315:
60:
50:
45:
37:
25:
20:
160:
144:duty also (now codified in Section 174 of the
293:
171:“… a reasonably diligent person having both-
8:
300:
286:
278:
17:
262:
92:. The case was decided under the older
107:Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance plc
7:
553:Legal services in the United Kingdom
232:Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co
196:The difficulty is that unlike the
33:Chancery Division, Companies Court
14:
140:was an accurate statement of the
80:1 BCLC 561 is a leading English
600:1994 in United Kingdom case law
590:United Kingdom company case law
1:
605:High Court of Justice cases
570:United Kingdom law category
621:
434:English administrative law
566:
323:Parliamentary sovereignty
309:Law of the United Kingdom
65:
69:, Duty of care and skill
461:English civil procedure
338:Law of Northern Ireland
224:Re Cardiff Savings Bank
477:British Virgin Islands
214:
181:
77:Re D’Jan of London Ltd
21:Re D’Jan of London Ltd
595:English tort case law
169:
111:insolvent liquidation
30:High Court of Justice
443:English criminal law
411:English contract law
41:1 BCLC 561, BCC 646
138:Insolvency Act 1986
123:Insolvency Act 1986
121:under s 212 of the
452:English family law
328:Constitutional law
198:Multinational case
156:Companies Act 1985
146:Companies Act 2006
94:Companies Act 1985
90:Companies Act 2006
84:case concerning a
577:
576:
558:British penal law
73:
72:
67:Directors' duties
612:
537:English case law
420:English land law
402:English tort law
302:
295:
288:
279:
270:
267:
247:English tort law
46:Court membership
18:
620:
619:
615:
614:
613:
611:
610:
609:
580:
579:
578:
573:
562:
541:
522:Anglo-Saxon law
470:Related systems
465:
391:Parallel fields
386:
382:Retained EU law
367:Competition law
353:Civil liberties
311:
306:
275:
273:
268:
264:
260:
219:
131:
102:
86:director's duty
32:
12:
11:
5:
618:
616:
608:
607:
602:
597:
592:
582:
581:
575:
574:
567:
564:
563:
561:
560:
555:
549:
547:
543:
542:
540:
539:
534:
529:
524:
519:
514:
509:
504:
499:
494:
492:European Union
489:
484:
479:
473:
471:
467:
466:
464:
463:
454:
445:
436:
427:
422:
413:
404:
394:
392:
388:
387:
385:
384:
379:
377:Commercial law
374:
369:
364:
362:insolvency law
355:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
319:
317:
313:
312:
307:
305:
304:
297:
290:
282:
272:
271:
261:
259:
256:
255:
254:
249:
244:
236:
228:
218:
215:
180:
179:
176:
130:
127:
101:
98:
71:
70:
63:
62:
58:
57:
52:
48:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
617:
606:
603:
601:
598:
596:
593:
591:
588:
587:
585:
572:
571:
565:
559:
556:
554:
551:
550:
548:
544:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
518:
517:United States
515:
513:
510:
508:
505:
503:
500:
498:
495:
493:
490:
488:
485:
483:
480:
478:
475:
474:
472:
468:
462:
458:
455:
453:
449:
446:
444:
440:
437:
435:
431:
428:
426:
423:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
405:
403:
399:
396:
395:
393:
389:
383:
380:
378:
375:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
359:
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
320:
318:
316:Common fields
314:
310:
303:
298:
296:
291:
289:
284:
283:
280:
276:
266:
263:
257:
253:
252:Companies law
250:
248:
245:
242:
241:
237:
234:
233:
229:
226:
225:
221:
220:
216:
213:
211:
205:
201:
199:
194:
191:
185:
177:
174:
173:
172:
168:
164:
159:
157:
153:
152:
147:
143:
139:
135:
128:
126:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
99:
97:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
68:
64:
59:
56:
53:
51:Judge sitting
49:
44:
40:
36:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
568:
398:Scots delict
274:
265:
238:
230:
222:
206:
202:
197:
195:
189:
186:
182:
170:
165:
161:
149:
132:
103:
76:
75:
74:
15:
512:New Zealand
333:English law
134:Hoffmann LJ
119:misfeasance
115:liquidators
82:company law
55:Hoffmann LJ
584:Categories
527:Common law
372:Labour law
142:common law
497:Hong Kong
482:Australia
348:Welsh law
343:Scots law
546:See also
243:BCLC 814
217:See also
129:Judgment
61:Keywords
38:Citation
507:Ireland
358:Company
532:Equity
487:Canada
425:Trusts
269:Ch 258
235:Ch 407
502:India
457:Scots
448:Scots
439:Scots
430:Scots
416:Scots
407:Scots
258:Notes
210:gross
100:Facts
26:Court
459:and
450:and
441:and
432:and
418:and
409:and
400:and
360:and
586::
125:.
96:.
301:e
294:t
287:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.