421:
behind others who, he claims, are the only directors of the company to the exclusion of himself. He is not held out as a director by the company. To establish that a defendant is a shadow director of a company it is necessary to allege and prove: (1) who are the directors of the company, whether de facto or de jure; (2) that the defendant directed those directors how to act in relation to the company or that he was one of the persons who did so; (3) that those directors acted in accordance with such directions; and (4) that they were accustomed so to act. What is needed is, first, a board of directors claiming and purporting to act as such; and, secondly, a pattern of behaviour in which the board did not exercise any discretion or judgment of its own, but acted in accordance with the directions of others.
409:
persons who are responsible for it, that is to say, who were in a position to prevent damage to creditors by taking proper steps to protect their interests. Liability cannot sensibly depend upon the validity of the defendant's appointment. Those who assume to act as directors and who thereby exercise the powers and discharge the functions of a director, whether validly appointed or not, must accept the responsibilities which are attached to the office. Nevertheless, the statutory liability is imposed exclusively upon directors of one or other of the three kinds that I have mentioned. Accordingly, the liquidator must plead and prove against each defendant separately that he or it was a director of the company...
388:
directors acted in accordance with the directions, and then that they were accustomed to do so. For instance there must be a pattern ‘in which the board did not exercise any discretion or judgment of its own but acted in accordance with the directions of others’. De facto directors are those who ‘undertook functions in relation to the company which could properly be discharged only by a director. It is not sufficient to show that he was concerned in the management of the company’s affairs or undertook tasks in relation to its business which can properly be performed by a manager below board level.’
24:
413:
de facto or shadow directors are very similar, that their roles overlap, and that it may not be possible to determine in any given case whether a particular person was a de facto or a shadow director. I do not accept that at all. The terms do not overlap. They are alternatives, and in most and perhaps all cases are mutually exclusive.
417:
prove that he undertook functions in relation to the company which could properly be discharged only by a director. It is not sufficient to show that he was concerned in the management of the company's affairs or undertook tasks in relation to its business which can properly be performed by a manager below board level.
396:. The statutory liability is imposed exclusively upon persons who are or were at the material time directors of the company in liquidation. But s. 214(7) provides that in the section ‘director’ includes a shadow director. A shadow director is defined in s. 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in these terms:
412:
I would interpose at this point by observing that in my judgment an allegation that a defendant acted as de facto or shadow director, without distinguishing between the two, is embarrassing. It suggests – and counsel's submissions to me support the inference – that the liquidator takes the view that
416:
A de facto director is a person who assumes to act as a director. He is held out as a director by the company, and claims and purports to be a director, although never actually or validly appointed as such. To establish that a person was a de facto director of a company it is necessary to plead and
408:
The defendants accept, though for the purpose of these appeals only, that the liability imposed by s. 214 extends to de facto directors as well as to de jure and shadow directors. It appears to me that that concession is plainly correct. Liability for wrongful trading is imposed by the Act on those
404:
Directors may be of three kinds: de jure directors, that is to say, those who have been validly appointed to the office; de facto directors, that is to say, directors who assume to act as directors without having been appointed validly or at all; and shadow directors who are persons falling within
420:
A de facto director, I repeat, is one who claims to act and purports to act as a director, although not validly appointed as such. A shadow director, by contrast, does not claim or purport to act as a director. On the contrary, he claims not to be a director. He lurks in the shadows, sheltering
387:
of the subsidiary, just by being members of the parent company’s board. It would need to be shown that they personally instructed and directed the subsidiary’s board. The first step is to identify the de jure and de facto directors, then to say that they had been directed, then that the real
366:
There were two corporate directors of a parent company of
Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Landsaver MCP Ltd, itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Midland City Partnerships Ltd, which was, finally, a wholly owned subsidiary of
375:. The liquidator alleged that the two directors of Eagle Trust, Leslie Thomas and Dr Hardwick, were liable for wrongful trading, and contended they were liable as shadow directors under the Companies Act 2006 section 251.
400:‘“Shadow director”, in relation to a company, means a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act …’ I need not recite the proviso to that definition.
227:
432:
244:
330:
485:
475:
41:
372:
480:
306:
258:
220:
88:
452:
294:
60:
107:
67:
213:
74:
45:
356:
56:
34:
81:
368:
318:
393:
344:
384:
173:
457:
270:
191:
169:
187:
469:
437:
23:
157:
205:
440:(directors of a corporate director are not necessarily shadow directors)
209:
17:
392:
Liability for wrongful trading is imposed by s. 214 of the
383:
Millett J held the directors of the parent were not
163:
151:
143:
135:
127:
122:
48:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
194:. It is sometimes incorrectly cited in sources as
453:"Shareholders angry as Eagle Trust is wound up"
390:
221:
8:
433:Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Holland
246:Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (No 2)
228:
214:
206:
119:
332:Re Continental Assurance Co of London plc
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
373:David James, Baron James of Blackheath
7:
307:Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Ltd
259:Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing
46:adding citations to reliable sources
295:Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd
405:the definition which I have read.
190:case, concerning the meaning of a
14:
451:Andrew Yates (2 December 1997).
22:
486:1993 in United Kingdom case law
476:United Kingdom company case law
371:, a TV conglomerate chaired by
33:needs additional citations for
1:
357:United Kingdom insolvency law
481:High Court of Justice cases
502:
353:
341:
327:
315:
303:
291:
279:
267:
255:
241:
168:
156:
57:"Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd"
283:Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd
183:Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd
123:Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd
438:[2010] UKSC 51
423:
402:
236:Wrongful trading cases
398:
172:, de facto director,
42:improve this article
394:Insolvency Act 1986
345:Brooks v Armstrong
363:
362:
179:
178:
118:
117:
110:
92:
493:
462:
385:shadow directors
333:
247:
230:
223:
216:
207:
186:2 BCLC 180 is a
174:wrongful trading
139:17 December 1993
120:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
501:
500:
496:
495:
494:
492:
491:
490:
466:
465:
458:The Independent
450:
447:
428:
381:
369:Eagle Trust plc
364:
359:
349:
337:
331:
323:
319:Re Cubelock Ltd
311:
299:
287:
275:
271:Re Purpoint Ltd
263:
251:
245:
237:
234:
204:
192:shadow director
170:Shadow director
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
39:
27:
12:
11:
5:
499:
497:
489:
488:
483:
478:
468:
467:
464:
463:
446:
443:
442:
441:
427:
424:
380:
377:
361:
360:
354:
351:
350:
348:EWHC 2289 (Ch)
342:
339:
338:
328:
325:
324:
316:
313:
312:
304:
301:
300:
292:
289:
288:
280:
277:
276:
268:
265:
264:
256:
253:
252:
242:
239:
238:
235:
233:
232:
225:
218:
210:
203:
200:
188:UK company law
177:
176:
166:
165:
161:
160:
154:
153:
149:
148:
145:
141:
140:
137:
133:
132:
129:
125:
124:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
498:
487:
484:
482:
479:
477:
474:
473:
471:
460:
459:
454:
449:
448:
444:
439:
435:
434:
430:
429:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
401:
397:
395:
389:
386:
378:
376:
374:
370:
358:
352:
347:
346:
340:
335:
334:
326:
321:
320:
314:
309:
308:
302:
297:
296:
290:
285:
284:
278:
273:
272:
266:
261:
260:
254:
249:
248:
240:
231:
226:
224:
219:
217:
212:
211:
208:
201:
199:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:
175:
171:
167:
162:
159:
155:
152:Case opinions
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
43:
37:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
456:
431:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
391:
382:
365:
343:
329:
317:
305:
293:
282:
281:
269:
257:
243:
196:Re: Hydrodam
195:
182:
181:
180:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
40:Please help
35:verification
32:
15:
470:Categories
445:References
336:2 BCLC 287
286:2 BCLC 180
147:2 BCLC 180
131:High Court
68:newspapers
250:5 BCC 569
158:Millett J
98:July 2018
426:See also
379:Judgment
274:BCLC 491
262:BCLC 498
164:Keywords
144:Citation
322:BCC 523
136:Decided
82:scholar
310:BCC 26
298:Ch 170
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
436:
202:Facts
128:Court
89:JSTOR
75:books
355:see
61:news
44:by
472::
455:.
198:.
461:.
229:e
222:t
215:v
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
