The Secretary of State may perfectly properly refuse to accept offered undertakings and instead decide to prosecute company directors under the Act, even though though the terms offered were intended to give equivalent effect. The purpose of the Act’s jurisdiction is to improve the standard of company directors, and the disqualification procedure has a prohibitory purpose as well as the exemplary purpose. Also ‘there is no statutory procedure for the policing and variation of…an undertaking..’.
Judges:
Woolf MR
Citations:
Gazette 08-Jan-1998, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2762, [1998] 1 WLR 422
Statutes:
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Michael Hamilton Amiss, Jonathan Andrew Chapman, Roger Rex Ingles ChD 20-Mar-2003
The Secretary sought disqualification orders, under section 8 which left the court with a discretion as to whether an order should be made.
Held: It was not necessary to establish dishonesty to a Twinsectra standard to justify an order. The . .
Cited – In the Matter of the Supporting Link; In the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 ChD 19-Mar-2004
The Secretary of State sought the winding up of the company. Directors offered undertakings as to their future behaviour.
Held: The Court should be slow to accept such undertakings unless the Secretary consented. The company was solvent, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143161
