0191 232 0283
0191 261 6956
info@srflegal.co.uk
Follow us
    • About
      • SRF TODAY
      • OUR TEAM
      • CAREERS
      • CONTACT & LOCATIONS
    • Commercial
      • Corporate and Commercial
      • Commercial Property
      • Dispute Resolution
      • Debt Recovery
      • Employment Law
      • Insolvency
      • Regulation and Financial Crime
    • Private Client
      • Family Law
      • Wills, Trusts and Probate
      • Buying and Selling Property
    • News & Events
      • FIRM NEWS
      • EVENTS & SEMINARS
      • SRF NEST
    1. Home
    2. News
    3. The first ever compensation order

    The first ever compensation order


    Published on: 19th December 2019

    Most Insolvency Practitioners will be aware of the ability for the Secretary of State to seek a compensation order against directors under sections 15A and 15B Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and the Compensation Orders (Disqualified Directors) Proceedings (England and Wales) Rules 2016.  This was introduced into law in October 2015, and yet the making of the first order took a further four years.

     

    In the case of Secretary of State v Eagling, heard on 2 October 2019, the can be no doubt that ICC Judge Prentis knew that his decision would be of great interest to lawyers, insolvency practitioners, academics and more.  His exceptional judgment was published on 1 November, and here we take a closer look at the key aspects.

     

    The compensation order regime allows the court to make a compensation order against a disqualified director where that director’s conduct has caused loss to one or more creditors of the insolvent company.

     

    In this particular case, Mr Eagling became a director of Noble Vintners Limited in 2015, a wine broker with three areas of business:

     

    - Buying stock to sell to its clients.

    - Source particular wine sought by its clients.

    - Sell wines belonging to its clients.

     

    The Company went into CVL on 22 June 2017 with an estimated deficiency to creditors in the sum of £1,678,614.

     

    In December 2018, the Secretary of State sought disqualification and compensation orders.  The compensation order was sought for circa £560k, to be distributed with £460k to 28 specific customers, and £100k to the general body of creditors.  This was on the basis that, by 2 November 2015, the Company had no prospect of paying off its creditors, yet it continued to incur further obligations which it could not meet.  Instead, Mr Eagling directed that all the Company’s income was to be paid to another company of which he was the shareholder, without any justification whatsoever.

     

    The court agreed with the Secretary of State’s position, on the basis that Mr Eagling had removed £560k, and that conduct caused the particular loss of £460k to the 28 creditors.  The balance could not be attributed as specific loss to specific creditors, and it was therefore just to order that it be distributed between the general body of creditors.

     

    Whilst this case, subject to the director’s actual ability to pay the order, is no doubt well-received on the whole, there have in the past been academic concerns raised over the potential for “double recovery” as between the secretary of State and claims brought by the office holder. The two regimes run in parallel and are not mutually exclusive.  This was specifically addressed by the judge, who thought that such concerns were “misplaced”.  This was on the basis that “the court is bound to have in mind that no statute should be interpreted so as to impose a double liability”, and further that CPR rule 3.4 would prevent a collateral attack on an earlier decision or other abuse of process.  The courts are keen to ensure that compensation orders are made in the public interest, and with double recovery clearly being against that interest, there is, in the judge’s view, little chance of undermining that principle.  Of course, this does not deal with all the possible conflicts and there are many questions that will have to be resolved on a case by case basis in the future.  

     

    In summary, this is an interesting and welcomed decision.  This new law has been effectively used in a case of blatant misappropriation by a director.  It will, however, remain to be seen whether compensation orders are sought in less straightforward or obvious cases and how in practice the two regimes work.  From the perspective of sensible directors, it is another reason why they should seek insolvency advice when their companies are in the early stages of financial distress.  On the other hand, this legislation is a further weapon against the actions of delinquent directors, where for whatever reason an insolvency practitioner claim is impractical.

     

    For more information, please do not hesitate to contact Alexandra Withers on 0191 232 0283 or ajw@srflegal.co.uk.


    TAGS: insolvency, litigation

    MORE

    • The FCA proposes tighter controls over Appointed Representatives (ARs)
    • Landlords and CVAs – CVAs triumph again
    • What is a Section 166 Notice from the FCA?
    • ICO calls businesses into action for the Children’s Code
    • Administrators’ duty of care in company sales
    • Breach of confidence by administrators
    • Liability of jointly appointed administrators
    • Telephone maintenance
    • The Financial Conduct Authority are looking to refuse my application for authorisation, what should I do?
    • ICO enforcement during Coronavirus public health emergency
    • Property possession: how do you proceed post-pandemic?
    • Losing the right to terminate supply: the impact of the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020
    • Employee claims in liquidation
    • Speeding during lockdown – the consequences of a heavy right foot!
    • Furlough Fraud – to confess or not confess: that is the question?
    • Finding The Time to Recap on Inheritance Tax Allowances
    • Coronavirus Causing A Surge in Wills and Powers of Attorney: Keeping Safe While Getting Affairs In Order And An Appreciation For Our NHS
    • The first ever compensation order
    • Driving and ‘using’ mobile phones – an update
    • Uber’s Huge Data Breach Hush-Up
    • Company Directors Oblivious to New Data Protection Rules
    • Warning for workers following data protection prosecution
    • Financial Crime Response Reforms to be Announced by end of 2017
    • Charities - Still Chugging Along?
    • Constructive dismissal explained - Podcast
    • ICO warns companies about the costly consequences of making nuisance calls
    • Charities - New Challenges New Opportunities
    • Breast Cancer Charity is first to be given official warning from the charity commission
    • Tata Fined £1m After Staff Exposed to Toxic Gas
    • Talk Talk Fined by ICO Again....
    • Claims Management Regulator Annual Report Summary 2016 - 2017
    • A New Data Protection Bill: Planned Reforms
    • Supreme Court delivers ground breaking decision on ET fees
    • New Regulator, New Preference Service, New Rules!
    • New Support Lawyer Joins Regulatory Law Department
    • ICO Publishes International Strategy
    • General Data Protection Regulation 2016: could your failures to protect data leave your company insolvent?
    • Signs of flexibility in EU markets?
    • Ransomware. Are you the victim or the perpetrator?
    • Transfer of claims management regulation – are you FCA ready?
    • The Best Possible Deal
    • Lobbying Act 2014: are you aware of its impact?
    • Deal or no Deal
    • Leap into the unknown
    • Newcastle law firm form specialist team
    • Newcastle University
    • Brexington Post - Issue 3
    • Supreme Court Ruling
    • Average Speed Camera Myth Buster
    • 12 days (and perils) of Christmas
    • Rising Star : Alexandra Withers
    • SRF Appoints Christine McVay as Head of its Family Law Division

    CONTACT US

  • 4 Mosley Street
    Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1DE
    Tel: 0191 232 0283 Fax: 0191 261 6956
    Email: info@srflegal.co.uk
    DX: 61037 Newcastle

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company registered in England and Wales under company No. 10572065, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No. 637150.

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company constituted and run in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006. The term “partner” has been used to denote individual senior solicitors employed by Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited.

    Website Privacy Policy

    Complaints Procedure

    • ABOUT
    • SRF Today
    • Our Team
    • Careers
    • Contacts & Location
    • COMMERCIAL
    • Corporate and Commercial
    • Commercial Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Debt Recovery
    • Employment Law
    • Insolvency
    • Regulation and Financial Crime
    • PRIVATE CLIENTS
    • Family Law
    • Wills, Trusts and Probate
    • Buying and Selling Property
    • NEWS & EVENTS
    • Firm News
    • Events & Seminars
    • SRF Nest