Sir Richard Scott V-C considered the effect of the relative strength of the case as to need on the degree of risk to the public that might be acceptable on any resumption of company director responsibilities, and concluded that in a strong case of need some slight risk might be acceptable: ‘In a case where no need has been demonstrated on the company’s part to have the applicant as its director or, from a business point of view, on the applicant’s part to be a director, there would need, I think, to be only a very small risk to the public which the granting of leave might produce to justify the refusal of the application. Per contra, if a substantial and pressing need on the part of the company, or on the part of the individual in order to be able to earn his living, could be shown in favour of the grant of leave then it might be right to accept some slight risk to the public if the leave sought were granted’.
Judges:
Sir Richard Scott V-C
Citations:
[1999] 2 BCLC 317
Statutes:
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 17
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Harris v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills ChD 9-Aug-2013
The claimant had offered an undertaking not to act as a company director for a period of time, to avoid applications for his disqualification. He now sought leave to act.
Held: The applicant had: ‘put forward ample evidence to justify a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.514983