New report commissioned by RICS suggests need for significant reform to the real estate valuation sector
The advantages of being the only director of your company may be fairly obvious to you. You will be able to make decisions quickly and with minimal disruption to your business. On the other hand, there are liabilities and responsibilities that can’t be escaped simply because there is only one director. Good corporate governance means a process whereby decisions are challenged and, if appropriate, changes are made.
With this in mind, if you are considering becoming or remaining a sole director, you should consider the following.
Directors owe certain duties to the company. These arise from various statutory and common law sources but the cornerstone of good corporate governance is the general duties regime set out in sections 172 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”). These include a duty to promote the success of the company, a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence and a duty to avoid conflicts of interest.
As a sole director, you will have many demands on your time and you will be making decisions almost constantly. How can you factor such duties into your decision making? The answer is that you will need to think carefully about the nature of your business so that you put each duty into context. It may be helpful for you to document the key elements that you must always consider in any decision. In adding a bit more structure into the process of decision making, you may find that you are changing your behaviour and making slightly different decisions, but in doing so you are almost certainly making better, more balanced decisions which will benefit you and your business.
What might this mean in practice? Consider the following scenario:
You are the sole director of Cleaner Cups Ltd, a manufacturer of reusable plastic-free coffee cups. The cups are made from a mixture of bamboo and corn starch. The business is well known for promoting eco-sustainability throughout its entire business operation.
Ol’ Bamboo Limited has been the exclusive supplier of bamboo and corn starch to Cleaner Cups for the last 3 years. The contract is due to expire and Cleaner Cups has invited companies to bid for the new contract.
Cleaner Cups has received competing bids for the contract from Hot Flask Ltd and Dirty Mug International.
Hot Flask harvests bamboo using sustainable methods and combines it with corn starch at its carbon-neutral factory prior to shipping.
Dirty Mug International can fulfil the contract for a significantly lower price but its bamboo-corn starch mix contains 5% plastic. Dirty Mug International has also recently been the subject of negative press coverage due to the business being linked to deforestation and causing high levels of pollution.
Taking the duty to promote the success of the company as an example, what should you do when considering the bids?
The Act helpfully contains a non-exhaustive list of matters which a director should consider in connection with this duty. These include the need to foster business relationships with suppliers and customers, the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, and the long term consequences of the decision.
In this scenario you will need to consider whether the addition of plastic to the composition of the cups would affect existing suppliers and customers, and whether the business’ reputation as an environmentally friendly company would be damaged. You will also need to consider any savings the business may make by entering into the cheaper contract and whether in the long term this could increase profitability.
It is difficult to balance competing interests but the interests of the business as a whole take priority.
Where there are a number of directors appointed, you will be scrutinising and challenging proposals as a group before making a decision (and you are obliged to keep a written record of what has been discussed and decided upon at your board meetings). As a sole director, even after you have added a bit more structure to the decision making process, it is not possible to have a board meeting with yourself, but you will still need to make a record of your decisions.
Even if you have made a decision which has a negative impact, if you take steps to record the process you have followed and the factors you have considered, then you are much less likely to have your decision challenged. If there are grounds to challenge your decision, then this may mean that you are found to be personally liable if others have suffered loss.
Taking the example of the duty not to accept benefits from third parties, what happens if a director breaches their duties?
Shortly after receiving the two bids, the directors of Hot Flask Ltd invite you to attend the British Grand Prix as their guest. You accept the invitation and attend the race. Before you leave, one of the directors gifts you a gold watch which you accept.
The problem in this scenario is that if you receive this benefit because of your position or because of anything you may do as a director (e.g. give Hot Flask’s bid preferential treatment) you may have breached your duty. Cleaner Cups may decide to remove you from office or make you reimburse the company to the value of the benefit you have received.
If you disclose the benefit to the shareholders, you may be relieved of liability.
There are several ways that a company can relieve its directors of liability. A potential relief commonly used by small businesses is ratification. This allows the shareholders to authorise the conduct of a director which may amount to negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust, after the event. In doing so, the company releases the director of any liability they may owe to the company as a result of their actions. A company cannot ratify acts that are illegal, fraudulent or which would put the company at risk of becoming insolvent.
Let’s assume that as well as being the sole director of Cleaner Cups, you are also the sole shareholder. With this in mind, can you relieve yourself from the liability you incurred as a director, in your capacity as the sole shareholder?
If the wrongdoing is automatically excluded (e.g. it is illegal) then the answer is clearly no. If the wrongful act is normally capable of ratification, it’s less clear. Case law to date has only considered matters where the wrongdoing is automatically excluded from ratification.
The Act prevents the director who has committed the wrongdoing (if they are also one of the company’s shareholders) from voting to ratify their behaviour. Therefore, it could be argued that a sole director-shareholder cannot ratify their own wrongdoing. We will need to wait for future case law to test this.
Sole directors often fail to ensure that the business practice they adopt works in conjunction with their company’s constitution.
The primary document which forms a company’s constitution is its articles of association. A company’s articles (read together with the Act) set out the how the company is to be run, the powers of its director(s) and the company’s relationship with its shareholder(s).
If a company has not adopted bespoke articles, it will likely have the default Model Articles or, if incorporated prior to 1 October 2007, the previous default articles known as Table A.
The Act provides that limited companies need only have one director, and the Model Articles do not prescribe a minimum. However, Table A provides that a company must have a minimum of two directors. Table A also states that the minimum number of directors required to hold legitimate board meetings (i.e. the quorum) is two, and a director with an interest in a transaction cannot vote or count in the quorum.
From the above scenario, consider that:
Cleaner Cups Ltd was incorporated in 2005 and has Table A articles. Cleaner Cups has two directors. The second director wants to resign and you have decided to continue as the sole director.
In these circumstances, Cleaner Cups will need to amend its articles to allow the business to legitimately operate with only one director.
If no amendment is made, none of your decisions as sole director will be valid.
No one wants to contemplate their own mortality, but for sole director-shareholders this may be one of the most important considerations.
If a company’s articles do not sufficiently deal with what happens on the death of a sole director-shareholder, this can provide practical difficulties which may prevent the company from carrying on business as usual.
In respect of shares held at the time of death, the company’s articles will likely require the personal representatives of the deceased to either transfer the shares or to elect to be registered as the new shareholder.
The Model Articles provide that, in the event that the company has no shareholders and no directors as a result of death, the personal representatives of the last shareholder to have died have the right to appoint a person to be a director without the need for them to be registered as a shareholder first.
Table A does not contain an equivalent provision so a company may find itself in a position where it is unable to appoint a director without leave of the court. This can be a lengthy process as the personal representatives will often need to await a grant of probate before the company can register them as the holder of the shares.
Such a delay can be disastrous for small businesses which may soon find themselves in a position where they cannot pay their creditors.
Given the common pitfalls set out above, if you are a sole-director you should:
A further benefit of appointing a second director or a company secretary is that the administrative responsibilities, such as annual filings to Companies House, can be shared.
Our corporate team would be happy to review your company’s existing articles of association or create bespoke articles to ensure these are suitable to your business needs.
If you have any concerns or require further information about directors’ duties and their potential implications, please contact a member of our directors and officers team.
Luke Gregory is an Associate in the Corporate and Commercial team, he works on a broad range of corporate and commercial matters including advising on company incorporation, bespoke articles of association and shareholder agreements, corporate governance, and Companies Act procedures such as off-market share buybacks and the removal of company directors. Contact Luke.
In Part 1 of our two-part series on the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy's (BEIS) White Paper on audit and corporate governance reform (Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance), we focussed on whether the proposals regarding corporate governance are likely to make the UK a more or less attractive destination for investors.
In 2012, as a recently elected MP, Kwasi Kwarteng co-authored “Britannia Unchained: Global Lessons for Growth and Properity”, a political pamphlet which championed risk-taking and innovation in the UK economy, and which ever since has led some to label him a fervent Brexiteer. Appointed as the Business Secretary in January 2021, only a few months later his department (BEIS) published one of the longest and most ambitious government White Papers in recent years.
A recent case has highlighted a trend that that we have seen over recent years, with Employment Tribunals finding that the dismissal of a senior executive can be fair where there has been a breakdown in relations amongst a management team and one director / executive is considered to be more at fault (Moore v Phoenix Product Development Ltd EAT/0070/20). Also, the procedural requirements for such dismissals may be more limited, in this case, the fact that no right of appeal was offered did not render the dismissal unfair.
In the recent case of TMG Brokers Ltd (In Liquidation) (also known as: Baker v Staines) the High Court held a director of a company to be jointly and severally liable for payments made by his co-director out of the company’s bank account which were made without proper authority and amounted to disguised distributions of capital. The fact that he had placed trust in the other director for the company's financial affairs did not excuse him from performing his duties.
Following the release of the Hill Report at the start of last month, the FCA has announced that it is going to open a consultation into changing the Listing Rules and connected guidance with a view to encouraging the listing of Special Purpose Acquisition Vehicles (SPACs).
Following a request by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) ICSA has prepared a report assessing the effectiveness of the independent board evaluation process introduced in the 2018 update of the UK Corporate Governance Code (the “UK Code”).
What happens when a director commits fraud by misappropriating company assets? Or what of the director who continues trading knowing that the company has no realistic prospect of paying its debts as and when they fall due? To whom does a director owe duties at that point and what recourse is there against that director? This article explores these questions.
Disputes between directors often arise because of, and/or result in, disputes about company money. Directors need to be alert to how they are required to act, particularly in times of conflict.
It is well known that directors owe duties to the company of which they are a director and, in certain circumstances, its shareholders, creditors and employees. Many people believe that if you have not been formally appointed as a director, i.e. you do not appear on Companies House records as a director, you will not owe the usual directors’ duties and, therefore, cannot be in breach of such duties or subject to sanctions for breach.
All providers registered with the Care Quality Commission (“CQC) must assure themselves that all directors who are responsible for delivering care to service users are fit and proper – in other words, they must be able to diligently carry out their responsibility to ensure the quality and safety of care. This forms part of the providers’ duty to ensure the service is well-led, which is one of the focus points during an inspection. Not only does the CQC monitor compliance at the point of registration, but it is an on-going duty and can lead to enforcement action where it is not met.
In the recent case of Barrowfen Properties Ltd v (1) Girish Dahyabhai Patel (2) Stevens & Bolton LLP (3) Barrowfen Properties II  EWHC 2536 (Ch), the High Court extended the iniquity exception to breaches of a director’s statutory duties.
It goes without saying that Insolvency Practitioners must behave honestly and with integrity in all their professional dealings. IPs must handle money and assets in a way which justifies the trust placed in them, but some professionals don’t realise that the way they behave on a Saturday night may be just as relevant to their ability to continue in their chosen profession as the way they behave on a Monday morning.
In response to the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic, the government introduced a number of loan schemes in order to assist businesses struggling financially. Recent reports suggest that these schemes, as outlined below, have become a target for fraudulent loan applications, by both genuine businesses and also organised criminal enterprises. This blog briefly examines the various loan schemes in place and the criminal offences which are likely to be the focus of investigating authorities in the coming months.
Court of Appeal overturns injunction in favour of son who sought to restrain his family from participating in the management of their caravan park business - Loveridge –v- Loveridge  EWCA Civ 1104.
Brother and sister Mark and Rachel Penfold were directors of a waste management company. In February 2016 an employee of the business suffered a serious injury when his arm was caught in a conveyer he was operating whilst at work. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the company and both individuals under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).
We live in uncertain and financially very troubling times. The coronavirus pandemic and the unprecedented measures put in place to tackle it have caused severe disruption to businesses. Big names such as Harveys, TM Lewin, Intu and the owners of Café Rouge and Bella Italia all went into administration at the beginning of the month. They will not be the last.
It is a sad reality that the Covid-19 Pandemic is likely to lead to a spike in the number of companies being put into insolvency. This has the potential to leave parties with claims against those companies with a reduced prospect of full recovery, even if their claims are strong. As a result, claimants may look for alternative targets, including ways in which they could sue directors personally.
Company succession planning is critical to ensure that a company can continue to run in the unfortunate event that a director (or shareholder) dies. If there are other surviving directors, they are able to step in and run the company, but what happens when a sole company director dies?
The impact of COVID-19 is being felt in many different ways. For those going through a separation or divorce, the pandemic has added a layer of uncertainty and stress to an already difficult process. This is particularly so for those who own a business (or whose spouse does), where the value of their business may have been affected and they are concerned with the impact on a financial settlement. In this blog, we look at the complexities of valuing businesses in divorce proceedings at this unprecedented time and provide some practical considerations.
In Hunt (as Liquidator of System Building Services Group Ltd) v Michie & Ors  EWHC 54 (Ch), ICC Judge Barber has confirmed that directors of insolvent companies remain subject to fiduciary duties, even after those companies enter into an insolvency procedure.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility