In Re Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State v Eastaway: ChD 21 Jun 2001

The director was amongst a group against whom a director disqualification order was sought. He offered an undertaking, but the Secretary of State refused to accept this unless it was accompanied by a statement as to the factual basis on which it was made. The director’s application failed. There was no explicit provision in the Act either way, and it could therefore be said to be ambiguous. Looking at the proceedings in Parliament and the amendments made it was clear that an undertaking was not to be accepted unless the Secretary of State had received evidence to satisfy him as to its need. It was appropriate, accordingly, to accompany the undertaking with a statement which demonstrated compliance with the Act.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-2001, Times 05-Jul-2001, [2001] 1 BCLC 653

Statutes:

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 7(2A)

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway HL 8-Nov-2000
Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope . .
See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway; Re Blackspur Group (No 3), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies and Others (No 2) CA 13-Sep-2001
. .
See AlsoEastaway v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81746