Compensation orders against company directors: a new way around Limited Liability?
As a general rule, a director will not be personally liable for inducing a breach of contract committed by their company where that director acted “bona fide within the scope of their authority” (Said v Butt  3 KB 497).
However, in the case of Antuzis v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd and others  EWHC 843, the High Court found that the sole director (and 100% shareholder) and the company secretary of a company were both personally liable for inducing its breaches of contract. This case stands as a warning of the risk for officers that there may be circumstances when they will not be able to hide behind the limited liability of the company.
The claimants in the Antuzis case were Lithuanian nationals who were employed at various farms to catch chickens. They were employed in an exploitative manner by gang-masters, working extremely long hours and being paid less than the statutory minimum prescribed under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948. The claimants sued the company for breaching their contracts of employment and its officers, Darrell Houghton (director and shareholder) and Jacqueline Judge (company secretary), for inducing the company to breach their contracts of employment, claiming, amongst other things, compensation for unpaid wages and damages for personal injury.
The Court concluded that the defendants made use of one worker who was an “enforcer” to ensure that the claimants followed a “gruelling and exploitative work regime”. The claimants were required to live in particular accommodation, charged an unlawful amount for such accommodation in view of their wages, and were often required to work on very little notice to the point where one of them felt he could not afford to leave the premises even to go to the shops.
The company, DJ Houghton Catching Services Limited, had clearly breached its contractual obligations to the claimants, but the Court had to consider if Mr Houghton and Ms Judge were personally liable for inducing those breaches of contract? The Court confirmed that merely procuring a breach of contract, even where derived from legislation such as the Agricultural Wages Act, cannot be the touchstone for deciding if a director is liable: “If it were, then directors would, in the employment field, regularly face personal liability because many aspects of employment contracts have a statutory element”.
The Court went on to say that in considering whether directors were acting “bona fide within the scope of their authority”, the focus must be on the individual director’s conduct and intention in relation to his/her duties to the company, rather than to the claimants. Therefore, the Court considered whether the individual defendants’ actions amounted to a breach of their duties to their company under the Companies Act 2006 (“CA”), and section 172 in particular which provides that:
“A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to–
(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b) the interests of the company's employees,
(c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
(e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company.”
The Court found that the actions/intentions of Mr Houghton and Ms Judge towards the claimants were in breach of their duties to the company and sought to clarify his reasoning with an example:
“There is, plainly, a world of difference between, on the one hand, a director consciously and deliberately causing a company to breach its contract with a supplier, by not paying the supplier on time because, unusually, the company has encountered cash flow difficulties, and, on the other hand, a director of a restaurant company who decides the company should supply customers of the chain with burgers made of horse meat instead of beef, on the basis that horse meat is cheaper. In the second example, the resulting scandal, when the director's actions come to light, would be, at the very least, likely to inflict severe reputational damage on the company, from which it might take years to recover, if it recovered at all.”
The Court concluded that that Mr Houghton and Ms Judge were on the wrong side of the line and had wrecked the company’s reputation in the eyes of the community, leaving it exposed as a pariah. The Court also found that they had realised that what they were doing caused the company to breach its obligations to the Claimants.
So it seems that claimants may be able to pursue directors personally if they can show that the director knew that his/her actions were in breach of his/her duties owed to the company under s.172 CA.
The Antuzis decision has the feel of a Court going out of its way to assist claimants who were also bringing claims under the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Acts for the particularly heinous treatment they suffered at the hands of the defendants. Although, the reasoning in the case seems to indicate that directors could act in a significantly less egregious manner and still find themselves personally liable.
So, the advice to directors is that breaching your duties to your company could be at your personal peril.
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.
Nick Ralph is a Partner in our Employment Law team. Nick is a highly experienced employment lawyer with an exceptionally strong reputation in the City of London and beyond. Nick acts for executives, partners and employers across a variety of sectors including: professional services, “C-suite”, hedge funds, legal, retail, trading, insurance, technology, private equity, IT, accountancy, regulatory and banking.
Fiona Simpson is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team. Fiona specialises in civil fraud litigation, advising clients bringing or defending civil fraud proceedings, often with an international dimension. Fiona regularly advises on freezing orders and asset tracing.
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