Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v McTighe (No 2): CA 1996

The court accepted that it was misconduct for a director to pursue: ‘the policy of not paying the debts of creditors who are not pressing when it is known that the company has insufficient reserves enabling it to trade except at the risk of such creditors.’
[1996] 2 BCLC 477
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1985
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Goldberg, Mcavoy ChD 26-Nov-2003
The Secretary of State sought a disqualification order. The director argued that one shoul not be made in the absence of some breach of legal duty, some dishonesty should be shown.
Held: The answer was a mixture of fact and law. A breach of . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Goldberg, Mcavoy ChD 26-Nov-2003
The Secretary of State sought a disqualification order. The director argued that one shoul not be made in the absence of some breach of legal duty, some dishonesty should be shown.
Held: The answer was a mixture of fact and law. A breach of . .
See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v McTighe CA 1997
Morritt LJ, giving the judgment of the court, distinguished between the conduct of two directors, disqualifying one for twelve years and the other for eight. He said: ‘The period for disqualification is a matter for the discretion of the judge . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.188613