When can company directors be personally liable?

1st May 2019

Andrew OberholzerThe recent High Court case of Antzuzis & Others v DJ Houghton Catching Services & Others [2019] EWHC 843 (QB) is a stark reminder of how company directors can be personally liable for their acts. DAS Law Solicitor Andrew Oberholzer explains.

The claimants in the case were chicken farmers who worked for DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd (D1). They were Lithuanian nationals and claimed that they had been required to work in an exploitative manner by D1.

The claimants had been expected to work excessive hours, did not receive the minimum wage, were paid less than the amount stated on their payslips, did not receive holiday pay, and were not allowed to take time off for bereavement. These serious breaches of their employment rights were caused by the director and secretary of the company, and the High Court went on to find that not only was D1 culpable, but that the named individuals were also liable for the wrongdoings.

Here the High Court revisited the law concerning the question of when officers of a company can be held personally liable for torts committed ostensibly through a company. The court clarified the test to be adopted, namely: directors will not be liable for the acts of their company, if in their capacity as directors, they are not in themselves in breach of any fiduciary or other personal legal duties owed to the company.

Courts and tribunals will therefore need to examine whether a director is acting within, or outside the remit of their contract, and also if acting in that manner is aligned with, or contrary to the interests of the company. If it finds the latter in response to these questions, a director will fall foul of the test. That director’s action will not be considered to be bona fide, which will invite personal liability – allowing a third party to sue them as well as the company for a loss.

But not all contractual breaches by a director will have this result. The High Court identified the duties in sections 172 and 174 Companies Act 2006 as being a suitable guide to assess if a director’s breach is sufficiently serious.

It then drew an analogy between a director who deliberately breached the terms of a contract with a supplier by failing to pay a bill on time, to protect his company’s cash flow (no personal liability), and a director who uses horse meat instead of beef in burgers because it is cheaper (personally liable).

The latter breach opened the company to a degree of reputational loss which it may never recover, and would have also breached a number of statutory provisions; as such, the conduct was sufficiently seriously to mean the director failed to act bona fide to the company.

In this case the defendants had failed to comply with the National Minimum Wage, and did so with intent, and this factored into the court’s decision; however, the court ultimately found it was more the fact the Directors had wrecked the reputation of the company in the eyes of the community which rendered their conduct as falling outside the scope of their authority, and contrary to the interests of their company.

The court concluded the desire to maximise the profits of the company in the manner in which they did, were neither in the interests of the company nor its employees.

The case highlights an important consideration for both claimants and respondents – that of determining the most appropriate party in a case. It may be thought of as preferable for a claimant to issue against both an individual and their employer as the liability may then be shared jointly between the two.

The thinking here is that if one cannot pay the debt the other will have to, in terms of enforcing a judgment – particularly useful if the company is insolvent. However in tactical terms this is a delicate question to address, because naming directors when they are clearly not liable will open a litigant to costs.

Nevertheless, this should serve as an important reminder to directors of companies that ‘limited’ is not a blanket protection, and they will not be able to hide behind the name of their company to escape liability if it can be argued that they have acted without authority, and/or against the interests of the company.

Disclaimer: This information is for general guidance regarding rights and responsibilities and is not formal legal advice as no lawyer-client relationship has been created.

The Big Gig Rejig – what employers should know about the gig economy

DAS Law Solicitor John Griffiths explains what the ‘gig economy’ means and how businesses can help themselves today when it comes to clearly defining the status of their people.

March 2019 Learn more
Cancellation: “Hi, Domino’s? Yeah, I’ve changed my mind, keep it.”

Can we cancel when buyer’s remorse occurs? The answer is often yes, but it can turn on some surprisingly arbitrary points.

March 2018 Learn more
Is suspension from work a neutral act?

A decision in a recent case determined that suspension was not a ‘neutral act’ and can amount to a breach of trust and confidence.

January 2018 Learn more

Read more from the DAS Law blog

Employment disputes , Protecting your business The return to work: a guide for employers

Lucy Kenyon looks at what employers need to consider when returning employees to work.

May 2020
Growing your business , Protecting your business , Setting up a business How to make business decisions ‘virtually’

The Covid-19 pandemic and social distancing bought into sharp focus the need for all organisations to consider their decision making processes.

May 2020
Employment disputes The Job Retention Scheme: have you got it right?

DAS Law Associate Carly Owen looks at the latest developments regarding the government’s Job Retention Scheme.

May 2020
Protecting your business , Setting up a business 4 things you need when you run a business from your home

Running a business from your home could make it easier to balance your home life with your work, but there are a number of extra rules that you will need to consider.

May 2020
Employment disputes , Protecting your business Health and safety and computers

Employers need to manage the risks to their employees of working at computers for long periods of time. DAS Law’s Bethan Mack explains.

October 2019
Employment disputes ‘Self-isolation’ – what it means and its possible impact on your rights and pay

More and more people in the UK are being told to self-isolate to minimise the spread of the Coronavirus. What impact will this have on workers’ rights and pay?

February 2020
Employment disputes Do employees get extra pay on a leap year day?

Every four years, many workers find themselves cramming an extra day of work into an already packed year. But are workers in the UK entitled to extra pay for this extra work?

February 2020
Employment disputes Braving the storms: what every employee and employer needs to know about winter commuting

If you run your own business, bad weather can cause chaos when staff can’t get in. What employment law regulations are in place when handling transport troubles in winter?

February 2020
Employment disputes My employer is advertising my job. Where do I stand?

DAS Law’s Lauren Woolf explains what to do if you find out your employer has been advertising your job without informing you that you are being dismissed.

January 2020
General advice , Employment disputes Beware the perils of sharing colleagues’ Christmas party antics on social media

Are people allowed to record and share your more embarrassing moments without your permission? What does the law have to say?

December 2019
Employment disputes , Goods and services disputes All you need to know about tipping

Are we legally obliged to tip? Does that money actually go to the staff or is it kept by the business owner? Thomas Pertaia has the answers.

December 2019
General advice , Protecting your business , Commercial disputes Understanding the definition of defamation

Defamation can be a complex area of the law but this simple guide from DAS Law’s Damien Field will hopefully help you to understand it a little more clearly.

November 2019
General advice , Protecting your business , Commercial disputes Distinction in Defamation – the difference between slander and libel

Defamation is the expression of an untrue insinuation against a person’s reputation. But what is the current law on defamation? DAS Law’s Saiful Ahmed explains.

November 2019