- 07 February 2020
- Corporate and M&A
In the recent high court case Re Systems Building Services Group Ltd , there was considerable debate and judgement made on whether a director’s general duties, as outlined in section 171 to 177 of the Companies Act 2006, survive a company’s entry into a formal insolvency process.
Although traditionally equitable principles are rooted in common law, since their codification many now see the ‘General Directors Duties’ as the pillars of correct corporate governance. Their cataloguing in the Companies Act has not, however, limited their discussion in legal proceedings; constant debate is had as to their reach and application to the day to day running of a company. In essence, the Companies Act places a mandatory responsibility on Directors to comply with the following duties during their tenure as director, and, in some instances, beyond:
- To act within their powers;
- To promote the success of the company;
- To exercise independent judgment;
- To exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence;
- To avoid conflicts of interest;
- Not to accept benefits from third parties; and
- To declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangements with the company.
In Re Systems Building Services Group Ltd  the Company’s liquidator, Mr Hunt, had commenced proceedings against its System Building Services Limited and their former director Mr Michie. Amongst a number of allegations, the liquidators claimed that Mr Michie had breached the director’s duties (listed above) by ‘causing or allowing’ payments to a creditor.
Specifically, Systems Building Services Group Limited claimed that Mr Richie breached duties 1,2 and 4 by paying out a total of £19,000 in favour of one of the Company’s creditors, shortly after the company had entered into administration. ICC Judge Barker found that, in causing or allowing these payments to be made to CB Solutions on the eve of the Company entering into administration, the First Respondent:
“(1) failed to give proper consideration to the interests of the creditors as a whole, in particular their entitlement to share rateably in the Company assets on a pari passu basis, contrary to s.172 CA 2006; (2) failed to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence, contrary to s.174 CA 2006; and accordingly (3) was guilty of misfeasance under s.212 IA 1986”.
Many now see the ‘General Directors Duties’ as the pillars of correct corporate governance
Key to Barker J’s findings was that the Companies Act 2006 makes it clear that the general duties of a director have the propensity to extend beyond a director’s time as a director. For example, the duty to avoid a conflict of interest with the company (s.175 CA 06) and duty not to accept benefits from a third party (s.176 CA 06) explicitly continue to apply beyond the ending of a director’s tenure. Additionally, given that the duties are rooted in common law and equity (as mentioned above) Judge Barker reiterated that the duties should be interpreted and applied with that in mind:
“these underlying common law rules and equitable principles [on which the duties were based] were plainly of sufficient flexibility to extend beyond the company’s entry into formal insolvency process such as administration or voluntary liquidation.”
Finally, looking to Insolvency legislation, Judge Barker noted that the Insolvency Act 1986 makes it clear that just because a company enters administration or voluntary liquidation, this does not itself guarantee the removal of a director from office. “There is nothing in case law preceding the Companies Act 2006…to suggest that such duties cease on a company’s entry into a formal insolvency process” she concluded.
Directors are uniquely subject to specific legal obligations in many areas of their business life. This recent case serves as a timely reminder that these duties will survive a company’s entry into administration and that such duties are independent of, although will likely act alongside, the duties any appointed administrator or liquidator.
The full judgement can be found here.
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.
Read, listen and watch our latest insights
- 06 February 2023
Redundancy and settlement agreements – What you need to know
In this podcast Ciara Duggan and Sana Nahas members of the employment team at Clarkslegal will guide you through the tricky topic of redundancy and settlement agreements, covering what redundancy means for both employers and employees, as well as how settlement agreements work in practise.
- 01 February 2023
What to expect in construction in 2023
Recent years have brought a host of challenges for the construction industry but what we expect for 2023?
- 30 January 2023
Deborah Scales comments on ‘the proposed Mental Health First Aid Bill’
In People Management, Deborah Scales, Associate at Clarkslegal, discusses the reasons why people professionals would likely welcome a change in set law as a “relatively swift and cost-effective” way to help the workplace.
- 26 January 2023
- Privacy and Data Protection
UK Data Protection: Development round-up 2022 and 2023 trends
In this podcast Oscar Poku and Ciara Duggan members of the Data Protection team at Clarkslegal will be discussing the main developments in the UK Data Protection scene from 2022 and what trends to look out for in 2023.
- 25 January 2023
Government’s response to menopause recommendations in the workplace
The UK Government has recently rejected calls for the menopause to be made a ‘protected characteristic’ and for a large-scale pilot of menopause leave.
- 24 January 2023
Can I still apply to the EU Settlement Scheme after my divorce?
A family member of a ‘qualifying’ EEA national (including the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) must apply for an EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Family Permit to join their EEA family member in the UK. The EUSS Family Permit is valid for 6 months, and once in the UK, the family member must apply for status under the EU Settlement Scheme.