T: 01273 761 990 E: info@helix-law.com

Commercial, Employment and Property Solicitors

NOTE: This website uses cookies.

By browsing this website or dismissing this banner you are consenting to their use. Learn more

I understand

Cookies Policy

We use cookies on our website. By using our website you agree to this Policy and you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with the terms of this Policy.

About Cookies

A cookie is a small file which asks permission to be placed on your computer’s hard drive. Once you agree, the file is added and the cookie helps analyse web traffic or lets you know when you visit a particular site. Cookies allow web applications to respond to you as an individual. The web application can tailor its operations to your needs, likes and dislikes by gathering and remembering information about your preferences.

There are two main kinds of cookies: “session” cookies and “persistent” cookies. Session cookies only last for the duration of users using the website and are deleted from your computer when you close your browser, whereas persistent cookies outlast user sessions and remain stored on your computer until deleted, or until they reach their expiry date.

Cookies on this Website

We use Session Cookies and Persistent Cookies on this website.

We use cookies for the following purposes:

  • to recognise your computer when you visit our website;
  • to improve the website’s usability;
  • to administer this website.

Generally, we use cookies to help us administer this website, to improve the website’s usability. We may also use cookies to identify which pages are being used. This helps us analyse data about web page traffic and improve our website in order to tailor it to customer needs. We only use this information for statistical analysis purposes and then the data is removed from the system.

Overall, cookies help us provide you with a better website, by enabling us to monitor which pages you find useful and which you do not.

Cookies do not contain any information that personally identifies you, a cookie in no way gives us access to your computer or any information about you.

We are committed to ensuring that your information is secure. In order to prevent unauthorised access or disclosure we have put in place suitable physical, electronic and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect on-line.

You can choose to accept or decline cookies. Most web browsers automatically accept cookies, but you can usually modify your browser setting to decline cookies if you prefer. This may prevent you from taking full advantage of the website.

Third Party Cookies

When you use our website, you may also be sent third party cookies.

Third party cookies may be used for the following purposes:

  • to track your browser across multiple websites;
  • to build a profile of your web surfing;
  • to target advertisements which may be of particular interest to you.

In addition, we use Google Analytics to analyse the use of this website. Google Analytics generates statistical and other information about website use by means of cookies, which are stored on users' computers.  The information generated relating to our website is used to create reports about the use of the website. Google will store and use this information. Google's privacy policy is available at www.google.com/privacypolicy.html.

Most browsers allow you to reject all cookies, whilst some browsers allow you to reject just third party cookies.

This website cookies policy is based on a free document supplied by The Legal Stop Limited through its website www.thelegalstop.co.uk.

When Directors can be Personally Liable on Company Insolvency

Two recent cases have clarified when directors can be made personally liable for their company’s debts under ‘wrongful trading’ laws, if it goes into insolvent liquidation.

A director of a company that is wound up because it is insolvent can be made personally liable for such of its debts as the court sees fit, if there has been ‘wrongful trading’.

There has been wrongful trading if, at some time beforehand, a director knew (or ‘ought reasonably to have concluded’) that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding the insolvent firm winding up, but did not take ‘every step’ to minimise the potential loss to the company’s creditors. In deciding whether a director took every step to minimise the loss to creditors, the court assumes he knew there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding the insolvent liquidation, even if in fact he did not.

The aim of the wrongful trading laws is to make directors of companies that are getting into financial trouble, who might otherwise try to trade out of trouble, stop and think carefully about whether they are being over-optimistic about the company’s prospects.

When judging what the director knew or ought to have concluded, and the steps he should have taken, the court asks itself two questions.

  • First, it looks at the director’s functions. It asks what a reasonably diligent person with the general knowledge, skill and experience required of someone exercising those functions would have concluded and the steps he would have taken. This is an objective test, under which, say, a finance director will be expected to reach the minimum threshold of competence required of all finance directors.
  • Second, it looks at the general knowledge, skill and experience that the director actually has – a subjective test, under which a director with specialist skills or experience is expected to apply them, and is therefore subject to a higher standard than a director without those skills or experience.

In the first case a start-up company was set up in late 2002. By August 2005 the original, substantial, external investment in the company had been used up, the company had lost a major customer and its revenue was insufficient to reduce the overall losses it had built up. It was wound up as insolvent by a creditor in 2007.

The liquidator alleged wrongful trading because, for example:

  • There was no evidence that the directors had considered the company’s worsening financial situation and its potential effect on creditors. They ought to have done so and ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation.
  • The directors had not economised – they had continued to spend money as they had previously, including paying themselves salaries and expenses. They had not taken ‘every step’ with a view to minimising the loss to creditors.

The court decided they were guilty of wrongful trading, from June 2005.

In the second case, the directors behaved much better. The company started trading in Spring 2004. By December 2005 it was having trouble finding external funding. The directors took advice from a specialist insolvency practitioner and decided to carry on. However, a major supplier withdrew its services in January 2006 and the company was unable to find a replacement. The directors immediately decided to stop trading and the company was put into liquidation by creditors.

The liquidator alleged wrongful trading at four separate times. However, the court said that, even though the company was under-capitalised and always had cashflow problems, the court could understand why the directors had behaved as they did at each of those times. Particularly as their decisions had been objectively justifiable and they had:

  • taken creditors’ interests into account in their decision-making.
  • made sure they knew the company’s financial position at all times.
  • actively tried to find fresh funding.
  • monitored and controlled the company’s debts.
  • tried to find new business.
  • taken specialist advice.
  • made their own decision to stop trading.

Recommendations

Directors of companies in financial trouble who wish to avoid allegations of wrongful trading should take the following steps:

  • Ensure they always have adequate and timely financial information.
  • Be alert to danger signs, such as pressure from creditors.
  • Draw conclusions from the circumstances that a reasonably prudent business person would have drawn.
  • Hold regular board meetings to discuss/review the company’s situation.
  • Ensure they consider the interests of creditors as well as comply with their statutory directors’ duties.
  • If there is a prospect of insolvency, do not incur new liabilities as if there was nothing wrong.
  • Record conclusions.
  • Take specialist, professional advice, consider it carefully and follow it unless there are very good reasons not to.
  • Consider stopping trading and starting appropriate insolvency proceedings before creditors do.

Case refs: Burke (Liquidator of Idessa (UK) Ltd) and Idessa (UK) Ltd v Morrison and Povey (formerly Heath) [2011] EWHC 804

Langreen Ltd (In Liquidation) sub nom David Emanuel Merton Mond (Liquidator of Langreen Ltd (In Administration)) v (1) Jonathan Bowles (2) Hazel Bowles (3) Philip John Moffat (4) Errol Rhoden (2011), Ch D (Companies Ct) (Registrar Derrett) 21/10/2011



Jonathan Waters
is the founder of Helix Law. Before qualifying as a Solicitor he worked in industry and in investment banking for over a decade. He was also the Partner in charge of Commercial Litigation, Employment Law and Property Litigation at Stephen Rimmer LLP. Jonathan has wide experience of helping and advising businesses to avoid or to deal with commercial disputes and in particular construction disputes. 


Contact Us

Contact Helix Law on 01273 761 990 or email info@helix-law.com

T: 01273 761 990
E: info@helix-law.com

Helix LawHelix Law Limited is a limited liability company registered in England and Wales. Registration Number 07845461. A list of Directors is available for inspection at the Registered Office: 1 Frederick Terrace, Brighton, BN1 1AX. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.