Company directors had had civil proceedings for disqualification suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings arising from the circumstances of the failure of their companies. They had variously suffered penalties including criminal disqualifications in those criminal proceedings, under section 2. They sought to argue that the continuation of the civil proceedings under section 6 would be an abuse of process. They now sought leave to appeal against rejection of their argument that the proceedings amounted to an abuse.
Held: Leave was refused. The court stated that the two regimes had different purposes, one of punishment and the other regulatory. It was impossible to say there was either an abuse of process, or double jeopardy, or double exposure in continuing the civil proceedings. The principles set out by the judge were not contested and that the ground covered in a s6 application went well beyond that considered in relation to s2 by the criminal court
Citations:
Times 12-Jul-2001, Gazette 26-Jul-2001, [2004] BCC 77
Statutes:
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 2 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – In Re Cedarwood Productions Ltd; In Re Inter City Print and Finishing Ltd; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rayna and Another ChD 3-Apr-2001
S6 of the 1986 Act proceedings had been stayed pending criminal proceedings in which the defendant was eventually convicted of conspiracy to defraud, sentenced to imprisonment and given a two year disqualification order under s2 by the trial judge, . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Weston and Another ChD 5-Sep-2014
The Secretary of State sought company director disqualification orders against the defendants saying they had been convicted of making false instruments. The Insolvency service had decided against such proceedings, and the Crown Court judge, when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81806
