Re Sutton Glassworks Ltd: ChD 1996

Referring to the procedure in disqualification proceedings of serving an affidavit, the court held: ‘That procedure, and, in particular, the mandatory requirement in r 6, emphasises the importance to the respondent of being able to ascertain with clarity from the evidence filed on behalf of the applicant what are the criticisms laid against him, and upon what evidence the applicant intends to rely. It is on the basis of the applicant’s initial affidavit evidence that the respondent is required to decide whether to advance any evidence of his own and, if so, what issues he must address by that evidence. It should not be open to the applicant, by making general allegations of misconduct, to require the respondent to put forward his own account of events, and then to rely upon the respondent’s own account to support the case for a disqualification order.’


Chadwick J


[1996] BCC 174


Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Swan and Othes ChD 22-Jul-2003
When commencing proceedings under the Act, the papers were defective. The secretary of state had failed to give appropriate notice, and thus prevented him from making representations as to the allegations. The allegations involved the manipulation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185772