|Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response.
COMPANY LAW -
INSOLVENCY – TAX – DIRECTORS’ DUTIES & LIABILITIES
SERVICE COMPANIES : CORPORATION TAX : DE FACTO DIRECTORS : DIRECTORS'
LIABILITIES : DIVIDENDS : FIDUCIARY DUTY : INSOLVENCY : DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE
DIRECTOR : CORRECT APPROACH TO IDENTIFYING DE FACTO DIRECTORS : s.212
INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
considering whether a director of a corporate director should be considered a
de facto director of a company, the guiding principle was that as long as he
had performed relevant acts entirely within the ambit of the discharge of his
duties and responsibilities as director of the corporate director, it was to
that capacity that his acts had to be attributed. Any further extension of the
concept of de facto director would be a matter for the legislature.
appellant commissioners appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal
((2009) EWCA Civ 625, (2009) 2 BCLC 309, (2009) STC 1639 that the respondent
(H) was not a de facto director of a group of composite companies and therefore
owed them no fiduciary duty. H had set up a number of companies (the composite
companies) which took contractors on as employees, rewarding them by means of
salary and dividends. The intention was to provide them with the same tax
advantages they would have enjoyed had they set up individual companies, whilst
relieving them of the administrative burdens involved. Although the intention
was that each company would be liable to pay corporation tax at the small
companies' rate, that aim was not achieved. Their share structure meant that H
fell to be treated as being in control of them and that they were associated for
tax purposes. As a consequence, each one was liable for higher rate corporation
tax and they became insolvent. Their sole director was another company (P) of
which H was director. The Revenue was the only creditor of the composite
companies and alleged that H was liable, under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.212,
to account for dividends paid out by the insolvent composite companies on the
basis that they had been misapplied by him or he had been guilty of misfeasance
or breach of any fiduciary or other duty in relation to the funds. The issue
was whether H was a de facto director of the composite companies so as to
impose fiduciary duties upon him.
(Lords Walker and Clarke dissenting) The question of whether H was a de facto
director had to be approached on the basis that P and H had separate legal
personalities. The mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director
was not enough for an individual to become a de facto director of a subject
company, Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd (In Liquidation), Re (1994) BCC 161 Ch D and
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Hall (2006) EWHC 1995 (Ch), (2009)
BCC 190 considered. The liability under s.212 was imposed on those who were in
a position to prevent damage to creditors by taking proper steps to protect
their interests. It was necessary to look at what a person actually did to see
whether he assumed those responsibilities in relation to the subject company,
whether validly appointed or not. H had done no more than discharging his
duties as the director of the corporate director of the composite companies. It
did not follow from the fact that he was taking all the relevant decisions that
he was part of the corporate governance of the composite companies or that he
assumed fiduciary duties in respect of them. If he was a de facto director of
the composite companies simply because he was the guiding mind behind their
sole corporate director, then that would be so in the case of every company
with a sole corporate director. A company was at law a different person from
its directors and it was the intention of the 1986 Act that that distinction
should be recognised. The distinction could not be overcome by simply pointing
to the quality of the acts done by the director and asking whether he was the
guiding spirit of the subject company or had a real influence over its affairs.
As a test, that would create far too much uncertainty. As long as the relevant
acts were done by the individual entirely within the ambit of the discharge of
his duties and responsibilities as a director of the corporate director, it was
to that capacity that his acts had to be attributed. That was the guiding
principle unless and until the legislature provided otherwise. It had not been
shown that H was acting as de facto director of the composite companies so as
to make him responsible for the misuse of their assets (see paras 25, 29,
39-40, 42-43, 94, 96 of judgment). (2) (Per Lords Walker and Clarke) If H
deliberately procured the payment of the dividends by the directors of P and
had the de facto power to do so, he was a de facto director and as such, he
owed a fiduciary duty to the company and was liable to restore the unlawful
dividends, just as a de jure director was. Capacity was irrelevant to the
question of whether an individual was a de facto director, Standard Chartered
Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No2) (2002) UKHL 43, (2003) 1 AC 959
considered (paras 132, 139).
REVENUE & CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERS & ANOR (2010)
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject.