Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

Last updated

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
Act of Parliament
Coat of arms of the United Kingdom (2022, variant 1).svg
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the disqualification of persons from being directors of companies, and from being otherwise concerned with a company’s affairs.
Citation 1986 c. 46
Territorial extent England and Wales; Scotland
Dates
Royal assent 25 July 1986
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (c. 46) forms part of UK company law and sets out the procedures for company directors to be disqualified in certain cases of misconduct.

Contents

History

Lord Millett, in the opinion he gave in Official Receiver v Wadge Rapps & Hunt [2003] UKHL 49 (31 July 2003), summarized the history of disqualification orders in British company law, noting that they were originally created under s. 75 of the Companies Act 1928 (subsequently consolidated as s. 275 of the Companies Act 1929 ), which was enacted on the recommendation of the Report of the Company Law Amendment Committee (1925-1926) under the chairmanship of Mr Wilfred Greene KC (Cmd 2657). It gave the official receiver, the liquidator or any creditor or contributary the ability to apply to the court having jurisdiction to wind up the company, for an order to disqualify a director from being concerned in the management of a company for a period up to five years. Such order was up to the discretion of the court.

The scope of that provision was subsequently expanded as follows:

  • S. 33 of the Companies Act 1947 (subsequently consolidated as section 188 of the Companies Act 1948 ), following the Report of the Committee on Company Law Amendment (1945) under the chairmanship of Cohen J (Cmd 6659), extended the grounds upon which a disqualification order could be made.
  • S. 28 of the Companies Act 1976 provided for the case where a person had been persistently in default in relation to statutory requirements for returns, accounts or other documents. Such an order could only be sought by the Secretary of State, as it was not a requirement that the company should be insolvent or in the course of winding up.
  • S. 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976 covered the case where a person had been a director of more than one company which had gone into liquidation while insolvent and his conduct as a director of any of those companies made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
  • S. 93 of the Companies Act 1981 extended the maximum period of disqualification to 15 years.

The CDDA consolidated the law relating to disqualification orders and introduced the concept of mandatory disqualification, following up on Sir Kenneth Cork's recommendations in the Insolvency Law and Practice, Report of the Review Committee (1982) (Cmnd 8558). That report recommended that application for a mandatory order should be made by the liquidator or, with the leave of the court, by a creditor. This was not acceptable to Parliament, which understandably considered that greater safeguards are necessary in the case of a mandatory order than are required where the court retains a discretion to decline to make an order.

Disqualification orders and undertakings

A court may, and under section 6 shall, make against a person a disqualification order, for a period specified in the order, providing that:

  • he shall not be a director of a company, act as receiver of a company’s property or in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a company unless (in each case) he has the leave of the court, and
  • he shall not act as an insolvency practitioner.(s.1)

The Secretary of State may also accept disqualification undertakings from such persons in specified circumstances, which will have similar effect.(s.1A)

Disqualification at the discretion of the court

The court may make a disqualification order where:

  • the person is convicted of an indictable offence (whether on indictment or summarily) in connection with the promotion, formation, management, liquidation or striking off of a company with the receivership of a company’s property or with his being an administrative receiver of a company.(s. 2)
  • it appears to the court that he has been persistently in default in relation to provisions of the companies legislation requiring any return, account or other document to be filed with, delivered or sent, or notice of any matter to be given, to the registrar of companies.(s. 3)
  • in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that he—
(a) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable (whether he has been convicted or not) under s. 458 of the Companies Act 1985 (fraudulent trading), or
(b) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company receiver of the company’s property or administrative receiver of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or administrative receiver.(s. 4)
  • a person is convicted (either on indictment or summarily) in consequence of a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of the companies legislation requiring a return, account or other document to be filed with, delivered or sent, or notice of any matter to be given, to the registrar of companies (whether the contravention or failure is on the person’s own part or on the part of any company).(s. 5)

The maximum period of the order is 15 years under ss, 2 and 4, and 5 years under ss. 3 and 5.

The court may also make an order for a period of up to 15 years where a person has participated in wrongful trading.(s. 10)

Mandatory disqualification

By order of the court

The court shall make a disqualification order against a person in any case where it is satisfied—

(a) that he is or has been a director of a company which has at any time become insolvent (whether while he was a director or subsequently), and
(b) that his conduct as a director of that company (either taken alone or taken together with his conduct as a director of any other company or companies) makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.(s. 6(1))

A "director" is deemed to include a "shadow director", which is defined as a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act (but so that a person is not deemed a shadow director by reason only that the directors act on advice given by him in a professional capacity).(s. 9(2) and s. 22(5))

The maximum period for such and order is 15 years, and the minimum period is 2 years.(s. 6(4))

A company becomes insolvent if—

(a) the company goes into liquidation at a time when its assets are insufficient for the payment of its debts and other liabilities and the expenses of the winding up,
(b) an administration order is made in relation to the company, or
(c) an administrative receiver of the company is appointed;

and references to a person’s conduct as a director of any company or companies include, where that company or any of those companies has become insolvent, that person’s conduct in relation to any matter connected with or arising out of the insolvency of that company.(s. 6(3))

Standard for assessing unfitness

The following factors must be considered in determining whether a director is unfit (s. 9 and Schedule 1):

In all cases

  • Any misfeasance or breach of any fiduciary or other duty by the director in relation to the company.
  • Any misapplication or retention by the director of, or any conduct by the director giving rise to an obligation to account for, any money or other property of the company.
  • The extent of the director’s responsibility for the company entering into any transaction liable to be set aside under Part XVI of the Insolvency Act 1986 (provisions against debt avoidance).
  • The extent of the director’s responsibility for any failure by the company to comply with any of the following provisions of the Companies Act 1985 , namely—
(a) s. 221 (companies to keep accounting records);
(b) s. 222 (where and for how long records to be kept);
(c) s. 288 (register of directors and secretaries);
(d) s. 352 (obligation to keep and enter up register of members);
(e) s. 353 (location of register of members);
(f) s. 363 (duty of company to make annual returns);
(h) ss. 398 and 703D (duty of company to deliver particulars of charges on its property).
  • The extent of the director’s responsibility for any failure by the directors of the company to comply with—
(a) s. 226 or s. 227 (duty to prepare annual accounts), or
(b) s. 233 (approval and signature of accounts).

Where the company has become insolvent

  • The extent of the director’s responsibility for the causes of the company becoming insolvent.
  • The extent of the director’s responsibility for any failure by the company to supply any goods or services which have been paid for (in whole or in part).
  • The extent of the director’s responsibility for the company entering into any transaction or giving any preference, being a transaction or preference—
(a) liable to be set aside under s. 127 or ss. 238 to 240 of the Insolvency Act 1986 , or
(b) challengeable under s. 242 or s. 243 of that Act or under any rule of law in Scotland.
  • The extent of the director’s responsibility for any failure by the directors of the company to comply with s. 98 of IA1986 (duty to call creditors’ meeting in creditors’ voluntary winding up).
  • Any failure by the director to comply with any obligation imposed on him by or under any of the following provisions of IA1986—
(a) s. 22 (company’s statement of affairs in administration);
(b) s. 47 (statement of affairs to administrative receiver);
(c) s. 66 (statement of affairs in Scottish receivership);
(d) s. 99 (directors’ duty to attend meeting; statement of affairs in creditors’ voluntary winding up);
(e) s. 131 (statement of affairs in winding up by the court);
(f) s. 234 (duty of any one with company property to deliver it up);
(g) s. 235 (duty to co-operate with liquidator, etc.).

Assessment is considered to be an objective standard in determining what is ordinarily expected of people fit to be directors of companies. Directors must inform themselves of company affairs and join in with other directors to supervise those affairs. [1] The courts have identified relevant factors for determining the length of the disqualification period:

  • a company director should realise that his statutory and fiduciary obligations are personal responsibilities
  • the primary purpose of disqualification is to protect the public against the future conduct of companies by persons whose past records as directors of insolvent companies showed them to be a danger to creditors and others
  • the period of disqualification must reflect the gravity of the offence
  • the period of disqualification may be fixed by starting with an assessment of the correct period to fit the gravity of the conduct, and a discount is then given for mitigating factors
  • a wide variety of factors, including the former director’s age and state of health, the length of time he has been in jeopardy, whether he has admitted the offence, his general conduct before and after the offence, and the periods of disqualification of his co-directors that may have been ordered by other courts, may be relevant and admissible in determining the appropriate period of disqualification [2]

The courts have also provided guidance as to what constitutes an appropriate length for a disqualification period:

  • periods over ten years should be reserved for particularly serious cases, which may include cases where a director who has already had one period of disqualification imposed on him falls to be disqualified yet again.
  • six to 10 years should apply for serious cases which do not merit the top category.
  • two to five years’ disqualification should be applied where, though disqualification is mandatory, the case is, relatively, not very serious. [3]

Automatic disqualification

The following persons are automatically disqualified:

  • undischarged bankrupts, persons subject to a moratorium period under a debt relief order, and persons subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order(s. 11)
  • those who have failed to make a payment under a county court administration order(s. 12)
  • those subject to a disqualification order under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation(s. 12A)

Subsequent amendments

Enterprise Act 2002

Effective 20 June 2003, [4] the Enterprise Act 2002 [5] added ss. 9A - 9E to the Act, which expand the mandatory disqualification régime to cover the following breaches of competition law under the Competition Act 1998 or the Treaty establishing the European Community:

  • agreements preventing, restricting or distorting competition
  • abuse of a dominant position

The factors for determining unfitness in this case relate solely to behaviour concerning the breach of competition law, and the other factors listed in Schedule 1 do not apply. Disqualification may be made through an order of the court or through an undertaking.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015

In March 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 [6] received Royal Assent. On 1 October 2015, Part 9 of the 2015 Act came into force, [7] which amended the 1986 Act to introduce:

  • inclusion of relevant foreign offences as grounds for disqualification (s. 104)
  • extension of the régime to persons instructing unfit directors of insolvent companies (s. 105)
  • revision of the procedure for determining the unfitness of directors and shadow directors (s. 106)
  • requirements for official receivers, liquidators, administrators and administrative receivers to report to the Secretary of State on the conduct of each person who was a director of a company on the insolvency date or within the three years before (s. 107)
  • provision for compensation orders and undertakings on persons who are subject to disqualification orders or undertakings, where the person's conduct as a director caused loss to one or more creditors during the time he was a director of an insolvent company (s. 110)

Consequences

Under the Act

  • where a person acts contrary to a disqualification order, undertaking or automatic disqualification without the leave of the court, he is guilty of an offence, and is subject on indictment to a sentence of up to 2 years in prison and/or a fine, or on summary conviction to a sentence of 6 months and/or a fine at the statutory maximum.(s. 13)
  • where a body corporate is convicted of acting contrary to a disqualification order, and it is shown that a person has contributed to the offence through consent, connivance or neglect, both parties are equally liable.(s. 14)
  • a person is liable for the debts of a company where he acts contrary to a disqualification order or undertaking, or where he acts or is willing to act on the instructions of another person who is similarly subject to the same.(s. 15)

Other effects

A person subject to a disqualification order or undertaking will also be disqualified from acting as:

Membership in certain professional bodies may also be affected, and members may be required to notify the fact of such disqualification to the body in question. [8]

Further reading

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidation</span> Financial process by which a company is ended

Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end. The assets and property of the business are redistributed. When a firm has been liquidated, it is sometimes referred to as wound-up or dissolved, 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 number of legal systems make provision for companies trading while insolvent to be unlawful in certain circumstances, and provide for directors to become personally liable for a company's debts if they have acted improperly. In most legal systems, the liability in respect of unlawful transactions only extends for a certain period of time prior to the company going into liquidation.

In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company (debtor), at maturity; those in a state of insolvency are said to be insolvent. There are two forms: cash-flow insolvency and balance-sheet insolvency.

An officer of the Insolvency Service of the United Kingdom, an official receiver (OR) is an officer of the court to which they are attached. The OR is answerable to the courts for carrying out the courts' orders and for fulfilling their duties under law. They also act on directions, instructions and guidance from the service's Inspector General or, less often, from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Enterprise Act 2002</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Enterprise Act 2002 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made major changes to UK competition law with respect to mergers and also changed the law governing insolvency bankruptcy. It made cartels illegal with a maximum prison sentence of 5 years and states that level of competition in a market should be the basis for investigation.

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".

In law, a liquidator is the officer appointed when a company goes into winding-up or liquidation who has responsibility for collecting in all of the assets under such circumstances of the company and settling all claims against the company before putting the company into dissolution. Liquidator is a person officially appointed to 'liquidate' a company or firm. Their duty is to ascertain and settle the liabilities of a company or a firm. If there are any surplus, then those are distributed to the contributories.

As a legal concept, administration is a procedure under the insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions, similar to bankruptcy in the United States. It functions as a rescue mechanism for insolvent entities and allows them to carry on running their business. The process – in the United Kingdom colloquially called being "under administration" – is an alternative to liquidation or may be a precursor to it. Administration is commenced by an administration order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom insolvency law</span> Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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, meaning 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 EU Insolvency Regulation, and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands company law</span>

The British Virgin Islands company law is the law that governs businesses registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is primarily codified through the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, and to a lesser extent by the Insolvency Act, 2003 and by the Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010. The British Virgin Islands has approximately 30 registered companies per head of population, which is likely the highest ratio of any country in the world. Annual company registration fees provide a significant part of Government revenue in the British Virgin Islands, which accounts for the comparative lack of other taxation. This might explain why company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the British Virgin Islands when compared to countries of similar size.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands bankruptcy law</span>

British Virgin Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in the Insolvency Act, 2003, and to a lesser degree in the Insolvency Rules, 2005. Most of the emphasis of bankruptcy law in the British Virgin Islands relates to corporate insolvency rather than personal bankruptcy. As an offshore financial centre, the British Virgin Islands has many times more resident companies than citizens, and accordingly the courts spend more time dealing with corporate insolvency and reorganisation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands company law</span> National economic law

Cayman Islands company law is primarily codified in the Companies Law and the Limited Liability Companies Law, 2016, and to a lesser extent in the Securities and Investment Business Law. The Cayman Islands is a leading offshore financial centre, and financial services form a significant part of the economy of the Cayman Islands. Accordingly company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the Cayman Islands than might otherwise be expected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands bankruptcy law</span>

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

Anguillan bankruptcy law regulates the position of individuals and companies who are unable to meet their financial obligations.

Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

Provisional liquidation is a process which exists as part of the corporate insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions whereby after the lodging of a petition for the winding-up of a company by the court, but before the court hears and determines the petition, the court may appoint a liquidator on a "provisional" basis. Unlike a conventional liquidator, a provisional liquidator does not assess claims against the company or try to distribute the company's assets to creditors, as the power to realise the assets comes after the court orders a liquidation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Kong insolvency law</span> Financial regulation in Hong Kong

Hong Kong insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is now primarily governed by the Companies Ordinance and the Companies Rules. Prior to 2012 Cap 32 was called the Companies Ordinance, but when the Companies Ordinance came into force in 2014, most of the provisions of Cap 32 were repealed except for the provisions relating to insolvency, which were retained and the statute was renamed to reflect its new principal focus.

<i>Ayerst (Inspector of Taxes) v C&K (Construction) Ltd</i>

Ayerst v C&K (Construction) Ltd [1976] AC 167 was a decision of the House of Lords relating to revenue law and insolvency law which confirmed that where a company goes into insolvent liquidation it ceases to be the beneficial owner of its assets, and the liquidator holds those assets on a special "statutory trust" for the company's creditors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, also referred to as SBEE, received Royal Assent in March 2015. Its contents include regulatory reform, public sector procurement and company director disqualification issues.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.