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 Don’t get in trouble with the law on April Fool’s Day

When does the line between hilarious and harsh get crossed and can a prank turn into legal proceedings?

March 2024
Employment disputes Top 10 Settlement Agreement tips for employers

The purpose of a Settlement Agreement is to bring an employment relationship to an end by mutual agreement. Here are our top 10 tips for moving people on with settlement agreements.

March 2024
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 2024
Employment disputes How Maternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Leave regulations are changing this year

In this Bitesized Edition, we look at the new Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations, set to come into force on 6 April 2024.

February 2024
Employment disputes 9 things employers need to know about apprenticeships

With National Apprenticeship Week here, we explain what employers need to consider regarding apprenticeship schemes and their legal obligations.

February 2024
Employment disputes How flexible working regulations are changing this year

Amendments to the current flexible working legislation will come into force this year. Any flexible working applications made on or after 6 April 2024 must be dealt with in accordance with the regulations.

January 2024
General advice , Protecting your business 5 things you need to know about missing the self-assessment tax return deadline

With 31 January deadline fast approaching, time is ticking for the UK’s 5.4m tax payers to submit their Self-Assessment tax returns.

January 2024
Employment disputes Holiday Pay Guidance from the Government – The Bitesized Edition

The Government has issued guidance on calculating holiday pay to simplify holiday entitlement for irregular hours and part-year workers.

January 2024
General advice , Employment disputes Be on your best behaviour at your work Christmas party

Charlotte Ellis. Legal Adviser at DAS Law, looks at the rules surrounding the office Christmas party.

December 2023
Employment disputes Don’t get a red card while watching the World Cup at work

If you are planning on watching World Cup matches at work there are a number of important things to consider.

August 2023
Employment disputes How employers can prevent harassment or bullying in the workplace

Employers can be liable for employees who have subjected other employees to harassment in the workplace if they have not taken reasonable steps to prevent harassment.

July 2023
Employment disputes How “purpose or reasonable effect” can affect workplace harassment cases

Harassment in the workplace has come under a spotlight in the last few years and employers have put their policies and practices under the spotlight to ensure they are doing all they can to eliminate it.

July 2023
Employment disputes Restrictive covenants in employment contracts – what the government is proposing

employees are departing who may have had access to trade secrets, strategic plans, financial plans and customer or client confidential information.

July 2023