Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. September 2013
  6. Directors: not in name only

Directors: not in name only

New case law guidance is available on who is a de facto director liable to a disqualification order
16th September 2013 | Pamela Abbott

Many limited companies have struggled to stay afloat with the decline in the economy, and ultimately have gone under. It is not only creditors who have cause for concern when this happens.
When a limited company goes into administration or is wound up, the administrator or insolvency practitioner makes a report on the directors’ conduct in the three years prior to the insolvency to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Their behaviour will be scrutinised to see if it is in the public interest to seek a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (“CDDA”).

Directors are also vulnerable under ss 212-214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which enables liquidators, creditors and others to bring an action against a director for breach of duties.

However, it is not only those officially appointed as directors by the company who are vulnerable to scrutiny. Shadow and de facto directors are caught as well. These terms are often used, but it is not always clear what they mean.

Definitions, or not

CDDA defines a shadow director as “a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act (but so that a person is not deemed a shadow director by reason only that the directors act on advice given by him in a professional capacity)”.

The literal meaning of “de facto” is exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established. How that applies to ascertaining whether someone who has not been appointed as a director, is in reality a director of a limited company, is not set out in any statute. However, the recent English decision in Re UKLI Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Chohan [2013] EWHC 680 (Ch) is very helpful in summarising criteria to be applied in determining de facto directorship.

Ten characteristics

Under CDDA, s 6 a defendant may be disqualified by the court if they are a director of a company that became insolvent and their conduct as director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. The court in this case was satisfied that both of these tests applied to Mr Chohan. However, he was not a formally appointed director of the company in the time frame in question. Section 6 expressly extends to shadow directors, and case law has also applied it to de facto directors. So, the question here was whether Mr Chohan was a shadow director, de facto director or both.

The court ultimately decided he was a shadow director or de facto director, and disqualified him for 12 years. What makes this decision useful is that the court summarised the criteria for determining de facto directorship. The court said that each of the following characteristics is relevant in determining whether someone is a de facto director, but not all need to be established:

(1) they must act as if they were a director;

(2) they must be part of the corporate governing structure and participate in directing the affairs of the company in relation to the acts or conduct complained of;

(3) they must be either the sole person directing the affairs of the company, or a substantial or predominant influence and force in doing so relating to the matters complained of – having influence is not enough;

(4) they must undertake acts or functions which suggest that their remit to act is the same as if they were a director;

(5) the functions they perform and the acts complained of must only be capable of being performed by a director;

(6) it is relevant whether they are held out as a director or claim to be one;

(7) their role may relate to part of the affairs of the company only, so long as that part is the one complained about;

(8) their lack of accountability to others and involvement in major decisions point towards de facto directorship;

(9) if they have the power to intervene to prevent some act on behalf of the company, that might be sufficient; and

(10) they must be more than a mere agent, employee or adviser.

Advice for solicitors

Solicitors advising directors of limited companies who are in financial difficulties should remind them that the spotlight will be firmly upon their actions in the run-up to insolvency.

Solicitors should also be vigilant when advising those who could be deemed to be shadow or de facto directors. To avoid any comeback against themselves, solicitors should flag to such individuals that they could be held to be acting in that capacity and what their duties are, and highlight the potential consequences of non-compliance with those obligations.

 

The Author

Pamela Abbott, solicitor, CCW LLP
Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

In this issue

  • Scotland: a patently obvious choice?
  • Bringing order to family law
  • Third party rights: behind the times
  • Judicial review: closer to the surface
  • A time for talent spotting
  • Fixing fixed equipment (full version)
  • Reading for pleasure
  • Book reviews
  • Profile
  • President's column
  • Moving up the gears
  • Justice redefined
  • Sep rep: decision time
  • Petrodel: could it happen here?
  • Clicks forward
  • Cover lines
  • Family time
  • Fixing fixed equipment
  • Rights undone
  • Directors: not in name only
  • Not quite joined up
  • Heritage disowned
  • Time to start growing your own?
  • Are you keen to be mentored?
  • LBTT: in with the new
  • How not to win business: a guide for professionals
  • Ask Ash
  • Forum is place to flag up problems
  • Scottish Barony Register fee rise
  • From the Brussels office
  • Law reform roundup
  • Diary of an innocent in-houser

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited