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 case followed findings in substantial litigation. It was not realistic of the director to suggest that he had had a proper defence in that action. He did not. The fact that others might be involved did not reduce the applicant’s culpability.


The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith


[2003] EWHC 532 (Ch)




Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 1A 8


England and Wales


CitedIn re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd CA 1990
The court gave guidelines for the periods of disqualification to be applied for company directors under the Act. The maximum period of ten years should be reserved for only the most serious of cases. Periods of two to five years should apply to . .
CitedIn re Samuel Sherman Plc 1991
Disqualifications under section 8 should be of similar length to those recommended in the Sevenoaks Stationers for disqualifications under section 6. . .
Citedre Swift 736 Limited 1993
The purpose of the jurisdiction created under the Act is to promote better management standards in companies. . .
CitedIn the Matter of Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies; Thomas; Thompson; Andrew CA 19-Nov-1997
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 . .
CitedTwinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others HL 21-Mar-2002
Solicitors acted in a loan, giving an undertaking as to its application. In breach of that undertaking they released it to the borrower. The appellants appealed a finding of liability as contributors to the breach.
Held: ‘Money in a . .
Citedre Queen’s Moat House Plc ChD 5-Dec-2001
The interests of justice are unlikely to require a second investigation of facts, which have already been the subject matter of an exhaustive examination. . .
CitedIn re Thomas Christy Limited ChD 1994
Findings by a Lloyds’ disciplinary committee could not give rise to an issue estoppel in later court proceedings. . .
CitedDeakin and Others v Faulding and Others; Specialist Group International Ltd v Deakin and Others; etc ChD 31-Jul-2001
Directors of a company authorised payment of bonuses, but the power to do so lay with the shareholders, not the directors. However, the beneficial owner of a share held for him by a nominee could give assent to a motion of the company at a general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180334