Judgment was given earlier this week in Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Chohan & Ors [2013] EWHC 680 (Ch). The case concerned an application by the Secretary of State for the disqualification of a director under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The decision contains interesting discussion of the characteristics of de facto and shadow directorships and provides another example of the court accepting the possibility that an individual could act as both a de facto and shadow director. In this regard the trial judge, Hildyard J., stated (at para. [46]): "It is now, I think, clear that (a) the same sort of evidential indicia are likely to be relevant to establishing both shadow and de facto directorship and (b) a person may act as both, the one in fact shading into the other."
Thursday, 28 March 2013
UK: England and Wales: de facto and shadow directorships
Judgment was given earlier this week in Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Chohan & Ors [2013] EWHC 680 (Ch). The case concerned an application by the Secretary of State for the disqualification of a director under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The decision contains interesting discussion of the characteristics of de facto and shadow directorships and provides another example of the court accepting the possibility that an individual could act as both a de facto and shadow director. In this regard the trial judge, Hildyard J., stated (at para. [46]): "It is now, I think, clear that (a) the same sort of evidential indicia are likely to be relevant to establishing both shadow and de facto directorship and (b) a person may act as both, the one in fact shading into the other."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment