HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors -  commercial legal work

Arbitration
Assets/shares buy/sell
Commercial advice
Company law
Company start ups
Competition law
Confidentiality
Construction & building
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Copyright
Debt recovery
Design rights
Directors duties
Discrimination
Dismissal law
E-commerce
Employment
European law
Franchising
Infringement
Insurance
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Merchandising
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off
Patents
Planning
Professional negligence
Redundacy
Reinsurance
Shareholders
Software
Sponsorship
Sports contracts
Trade Marks (Trademarks)
Unfair dismissal

DIRECTORS - FIDUCIARY DUTY - DISHONEST DIVERSION OF ASSETS TO OFFSHORE COMPANY

D was the managing director of the ACP group of companies. Following its take over, the group's new owners alleged that D had dishonestly diverted assets and business opportunities to himself and B, a foreign company under his direct control. ACP submitted that D had arranged the sale of second hand machinery while travelling on ACP's business, with the commission being paid to B. On other occasions, sales of second hand equipment were made to ACP's customers using ACP letterheads and installed by its staff, with the commission again paid directly to B. Further, D's son was employed by ACP on a salary of £24,000 a year even though he was still at school. D maintained that he was entitled to profit from such sales as ACP did not deal in second hand equipment. ACP sought summary judgment on the grounds that its assets had been dishonestly diverted.

Held, giving summary judgment for ACT, that D had no defence based on the argument that ACP would not have exploited a particular business opportunity and could only escape liability if he had obtained the consent of ACP's shareholders for his actions. Both D and B were liable to account to ACP for the profits and commissions made on new or second hand plant sales that ACP could have supplied. Further, it was appropriate to lift the corporate veil on B as it was directly controlled by D and in reality functioned as his offshore bank account. The payment to D's son was invalid both because it had operated as an unauthorised salary increase for D and had been made to reduce his tax liability.

GENCOR ACP LTD v. DALBY [2000] 2 B.C.L.C. 734, Rimer, J., Ch D.

"Current Law" March 2001

E-mail us with details of your enquiry on directors-duties@humphreys.co.uk
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722




Relevant material




DIRECTOR LIABLE FOR DIVERTING CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY
 
NO VALIDATION OF DIRECTOR'S ACT
 
Implications of a finding of shadow directorship
 
Directors' rights
 
HOW TO BE A DIRECTOR
 
DIRECTORS' DISQUALIFICATION
 
DIRECTOR IS BANNED AND ORDERED TO REPAY £2M
 
DIRECTORS - FIDUCIARY DUTY - DISHONEST DIVERSION OF ASSETS TO OFFSHORE COMPANY
 
Directors
 
UNCERTAINTY SHROUDS DIRECTORS' DUTIES
 
Secretarial help needed
 
Disqualifying unfit directors
 
Disqualified director fined £200,000
 
Directors disqualification proceedings
 


Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Click here for information about the work we do for private clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors

Home Page