Search

How can we help?

Icon

No hiding in the shadows – holding directors to account

Two recent cases show the circumstances in which the court will allow contempt proceedings against directors for actions taken by their companies. 

Phonographic Performance Limited v Nightclub (London) Limited involved the defendant nightclub playing without the necessary licence music that belonged to the claimant.  The claimant obtained an injunction which was served both on the company and its sole director, the second defendant.  The nightclub continued to play the claimant’s recordings in breach of the injunction.  Neither the company nor its director attended any of the court hearings.

The court held that there was no doubt that the company was in contempt by continuing to play the infringed music.  Its sole director was the controlling mind of the company but deliberately chose to ignore the injunction.  Accordingly he was also in contempt.  Although it was exceptional to proceed with a contempt hearing in the absence of a defendant, it was appropriate to do so here.  The defendant was aware of the hearing but had chosen not to attend.  However, the court directed that there be a further hearing (and a final opportunity for the defendant to attend) before sentencing took place.

Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Nu Tek (HK) & others also considered a contempt application in the absence of the directors.  In this case the claimant obtained a worldwide freezing order, which required the respondent company to disclose details of its assets within four days.  The second respondent (the company’s sole director) subsequently filed a notice of resignation, being replaced by the third respondent.  The second respondent remained chairman and MD of the company’s parent.   The company failed to comply with the disclosure order and the claimant issued contempt proceedings, which were served on the three respondents.

Again, the respondents failed to attend court and the hearing proceeded in their absence.  The court was satisfied that, notwithstanding the purported resignation, the second respondent remained in effective control of the company and was its shadow director.  The refusal to comply with the disclosure order was deliberate, as was the decision not to attend court.  All three respondents were found to be in contempt.  On this occasion the court was prepared to sentence in the respondents’ absence – an adjournment was unlikely to secure their attendance and a further delay would cause prejudice to the claimant. The second and third respondents were respectively sentenced to 18 and 12 months’ imprisonment.

 

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

Chambers and Partners

The Clarkslegal team are commercial and good to work with. They get what our business needs and tell me what I need to hear.

These cases give a helpful reminder of how seriously the court takes a deliberate breach of its orders.  They are also a warning to any director not to hide behind the actions a company for which they are ultimately responsible.

For further information on how our litigation lawyers can help you to comply with your directors duties.

About this article

Disclaimer

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.

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 05 March 2024
  • Privacy and Data Protection

How do I protect my business in the event of a personal data breach?

Don’t let your business fall victim to personal data breaches. Join Louise Keenan and Rebecca Dowle, for a quick overview of how to protect your business.

Pub
  • 05 March 2024
  • Privacy and Data Protection

AI Podcast: AI and Intellectual Property

In the second of our three-part ‘AI Podcast’ series, Jacob Montague and Lucy Densham Brown, will be exploring how artificial intelligence (AI) interacts with intellectual property rights (IP rights).

art
  • 04 March 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

Treasury Shares – An Opportunity to be Treasured

Under section 658 of the Companies Act 2006 (‘CA 2006’), there is a general rule against companies acquiring and owning their own shares.

art
  • 28 February 2024
  • Commercial Real Estate

Hidden risks in serviced office agreements

This is usually a fully furnished and equipped office space that is managed by a facility management company and made available for short-term or long-term rentals to businesses, varying from one week to a year, or even longer.

art
  • 27 February 2024
  • Employment

Changing Attitudes to Menopause

We have set out some answers to the frequently asked questions that employers ask when considering how to support a menopausal employee.

art
  • 22 February 2024
  • Employment

Time to take the heat off menopausal women

On 22 February 2024, the EHRC released guidance and resources for employers designed to help employers understand their legal obligations in relation to supporting workers experiencing menopausal symptoms.