Re a Company (No 001418 of 1988) [1990] BCC 526 is a UK insolvency law case, on the offence of fraudulent trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
In company law, fraudulent trading is doing business with intent to defraud creditors.
The Insolvency Act 1986 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provides the legal platform for all matters relating to personal and corporate insolvency in the UK.
The company had exceeded its overdraft limit and fallen behind in payments for PAYE, National Insurance contributions, VAT and debts to creditors (totalling around £212,618). Nevertheless Mr Barford, the company's director and majority shareholder, paid himself an increasingly high salary in the very years that debts were mounting to creditors.
National Insurance (NI) is a tax system in the United Kingdom paid by workers and employers for funding state benefits. Initially, it was a contributory form of insurance against illness and unemployment, and eventually provided retirement pensions and other benefits. Citizens pay National Insurance contributions to become eligible for State Pension and other benefits. Anyone 16 years old and above are mandated to pay National Insurance provided the employee earns more than £162 a week or the individual is self-employed and makes a profit of £6,205 or more annually. It is necessary to obtain a National Insurance number before starting to pay contributions.
Judge Bromley Q.C. held that Mr Barford was guilty of fraudulent trading. He ordered £156,420 be contributed for the debts and liabilities, containing a compensatory element for the debts that were part of the fraudulent trading and a punitive element of £25,000 (following R v. Grantham [1984] QB 675). He held there was "real moral blame" in continuing the company's trading when there was no reason to think that the company could pay its debts as they fell due.
| “ | In my judgment the amounts of remuneration were very high for a company in such a state. For the year ended 31 March 1983 the remuneration was £35,000. That was the year of the substantial profit and I see the case that that might well have been justified. However, the following year, to 31 March 1984, the remuneration package increased to £37,521. That was the year where there was a sharp swing to loss and a large adverse change in the net assets position. For the year ended 31 March 1985 the directors' remuneration total was £41,726-even higher – and I ask rhetorically, what were the directors doing paying themselves these significant and increasing sums while the debts to the company's creditors mounted? I also heard evidence about a caravan. Mr Barford - not the company - contracted to buy it on hire purchase on 6 August 1983. It was treated as an asset of the company in its books. The company paid the monthly instalments by standing order of £199-odd, and it did that from September 1984 continuously through to May 1986, until just before its liquidation. The Inland Revenue have not accepted those payments as a company trading expense. A hire purchase (HP), known as installment plan in North America, is an arrangement whereby a customer agrees to a contract to acquire an asset by paying an initial installment and repays the balance of the price of the asset plus interest over a period of time. Other analogous practices are described as closed-end leasing or rent to own.  The Inland Revenue was, until April 2005, a department of the British Government responsible for the collection of direct taxation, including income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and stamp duty. More recently, the Inland Revenue also administered the Tax Credits schemes, whereby monies, such as Working Tax Credit (WTC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC), are paid by the Government into a recipient's bank account or as part of their wages. The Inland Revenue was also responsible for the payment of child benefit. The position is that while the company's position was deteriorating as it did down to insolvency, the caravan, for which as an asset of the company for its benefit there is no evidence, was continuing to be paid for by the company. In my judgment in relation to the company's creditors, that was reprehensible. By the end of July 1984 I find that Mr Barford knew:
Mr Barford told me that he did not intend to defraud creditors and he did not know about fraudulent trading. I am satisfied that he was in full control of the company and had full knowledge of its affairs. He is an experienced businessman. He told me that his wife's business failed and she was ill and that there appears to be a divorce pending. However, in my judgment within the principles I have referred to, from the end of July 1984 at least Mr Barford had no reason for thinking that the company could pay its debts as they fell due or shortly thereafter. There was in my judgment real moral blame according to current notions of fair trading in his procuring the company to continue to trade, i.e. within the meaning of the section, dishonesty. I accordingly determine that there was fraudulent trading and, as a convenient date for start, that it began on the 31 July 1984. As to 1985 onwards little, in my judgment, needs to be said. The position continued to deteriorate. The accounts sent to Barclays for January 1985 showed a net assets deficiency of £185,451. There was a significant scale of dishonoured cheques from February 1985 onwards, and on 26 March 1985 Barclays wrote to the company suggesting that it find other bankers and repay the indebtedness. It was at about that time that the company arranged to sell its premises, and that sale was completed-it seems after some delays-in July 1985 and Barclays was paid off. Also in that month Brayford Plastics sued the company and, as I have said, eventually the company progressed into a creditors' voluntary liquidation on 6 June 1986, showing a very substantial deficiency as to unsecured creditors.  Barclays plc is a British multinational investment bank and financial services company, headquartered in London. Apart from investment banking, Barclays is organised into four core businesses: personal banking, corporate banking, wealth management, and investment management. The question now arises as to the form of the relief. Having been helpfully taken through the authorities by Mr Hollington the following principles are in my view relevant on this application by a liquidator.
Mr Hollington urged me to adopt the formulation of Knox J in Re Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd (1989) 5 BCC 569, where his Lordship said, at p. 597G:
That is a reference to the Insolvency Act of 1986. The preceding section of that, sec. 213, is the re-enactment of sec. 630 of the Companies Act 1985, with which I am concerned. Knox J was, however, concerned with a different statutory provision and it is, I think, preferable to found myself on a direct nexus with the statutory language before me, particularly in the light of Maugham J's observations. (I add that there may not be a difference of principle and I am in no way dissenting from what Knox J said.) Where the context is fraudulent trading with intent to defraud creditors, there is a clear logic in asking what the creditors have lost as a result of the fraudulent trading. I agree with Mr Hollington that an adequate measure of the maximum compensatory element (I emphasise maximum) is the amount of the trading loss during the period of fraudulent trading. I differ from him in that I exclude the amount of extraordinary items for the year ended 31 March 1986, namely, the loss on the sale of the freehold property, £4,136, and the loss on the sale of fixtures and fittings, £12,152. I see no nexus to establish these losses as the consequence of fraudulent trading or any evidence that those losses would have been different on a sale at any other time than, in fact, March-July 1985. With that adjustment the trading losses for the period of fraudulent trading were:
[... totalling] £131,420. While this is a compensatory maximum I see no reason to reduce it. I am satisfied that there are elements in this case which point to a need for a considerable punitive element. Thus, first, Mr Barford well knew from the years of Barclays' concern expressed to him and the accounts that he was providing that he was trading dangerously. There were large excesses of current liabilities over the current assets which did not come down, and there were serious cash flow difficulties. Secondly, the fraudulent trading continued for a long period after 31 July 1984 for some 22 months, drawing more creditors into the net. Thirdly, the directors' remuneration was high in relation to a company in such a long-continued parlous financial state. Fourthly, the change of name and the reverse at the least must have been appreciated to be confusing to creditors, whether or not it was intended to lead to that confusion. Fifthly, the company continued to pay throughout for the caravan as I have indicated. I consider that a punitive element of £25,000 is appropriate. The total of the two sums of £131,420 and £25,000 is £156,420, and that is the amount as to which I propose to make a declaration. Subject to any submissions which may be I propose to declare that (1) Mr Barford was knowingly party to the carrying on of the business of the company with intent to defraud creditors for the period 31 July 1984 to liquidation, and is to be personally liable to the extent of £156,420 for its debts and liabilities, and (2) that sum shall form part of the general assets in the liquidation of the company. | ” |
Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and United States. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.
A floating charge is a security interest over a fund of changing assets of a company or other artificial person. Unlike a fixed charge, which is created over ascertained and definite property, a floating charge is created over property of an ambulatory and shifting nature. Examples of such property are receivables and stocks. The floating charge The floating charge 'floats' or 'hovers' until the point at which it is converted into a fixed charge. Once it becomes a "fixed charge" the charge attaches to the specific assets of the business. This conversion of the floating charge into a fixed charge can trigger common law jurisdictions]] it is an implied term in security documents creating floating charges that a cessation of the company's right to deal with the assets in the ordinary course of business leads to automatic crystallisation. Additionally, security documents will usually include express terms that a default by the person granting the security will trigger crystallisation.
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders to pay up outstanding debts owed.
Wrongful trading is a type of civil wrong found in UK insolvency law, under Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company. Under Australian insolvency law the equivalent concept is called "insolvent trading".
The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.
United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986 ), the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.
R v Grantham [1984] QB 675 is a UK insolvency law case which decides that an intent to defraud, now under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 213, needs to be established for a conviction for fraudulent trading, and knowing that there was no prospect of being able to pay debt when they fell due, even if there might be a distant prospect in the future, constituted an intent to defraud.
Re Augustus Barnett & Son Ltd [1986] BCLC 170 is a UK insolvency law case on the standard of fault required to show that directors have been guilty of fraudulent trading.
Re Sarflax Ltd [1979] Ch 592; [1979] 1 All E.R. 529 is a UK insolvency law case concerning voidable preferences and fraudulent trading, now in the Insolvency Act 1986. It concerns the definition of "intention to defraud", which is found in a number of legal provisions.
Re MC Bacon Ltd [1990] BCLC 324 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning transactions at an undervalue and voidable preferences.
Agnew v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, more commonly referred to as Re Brumark Investments Ltd [2001] UKPC 28 is a decision of the Privy Council relating to New Zealand and UK insolvency law, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets, the proper characterisation of a floating charge, and the priority of creditors in a company winding-up.
Re Parkes Garage (Swadlincote) Ltd [1929] 1 Ch 139 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning a voidable floating charge for past value.
Arbuthnot Leasing International Ltd v Havelet Leasing Ltd [1990] BCC 636 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning a fraudulent transaction under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 423.
Morphitis v Bernasconi [2003] EWCA Civ 289 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning fraudulent trading.
The corporate veil in the United Kingdom is a metaphorical reference used in UK company law for the concept that the rights and duties of a corporation are, as a general principle, the responsibility of that company alone. Just as a natural person cannot be held legally accountable for the conduct or obligations of another person, unless they have expressly or implicitly assumed responsibility, guaranteed or indemnified the other person, as a general principle shareholders, directors and employees cannot be bound by the rights and duties of a corporation. This concept has traditionally been likened to a "veil" of separation between the legal entity of a corporation and the real people who invest their money and labour into a company's operations.
Stonegate Securities Ltd v Gregory [1980] Ch 576 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the liquidation procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts. It held that a winding up petition would not be granted to a petitioner to whom a debt was bona fide under dispute.
Re Charnley Davies Ltd [1990] BCLC 760 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts. It held that an administrator would only breach a duty of care if an ordinary, skilled practitioner would have acted differently.
Administration in United Kingdom law refers to the main kind of procedure in UK insolvency law when a company is unable to pay its debts. The management of the company is usually replaced by an insolvency practitioner whose statutory duty is to rescue the company, save the business, or get the best result possible. It is the equivalent of Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, although with significant differences. While creditors with a security interest over all a company's assets could control the procedure previously through receivership, the Enterprise Act 2002 made administration the main procedure.
Brooks v Armstrong [2016] EWHC 2289 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) is a UK insolvency law case on wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.