2018 has been one tough year on the High Street...

Retail, as a sector, has long been under pressure from increased competition from online retailers, which has resulted in reduced footfall on the High Street, affecting many companies, including many well-known names.

Directors may not be able to rely on limitation as a defence to some misfeasance claims, following the Supreme Court's decision in Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding [2018] UKSC 14.

Where directors have obtained an economic benefit from an unlawful distribution they are not entitled to rely on the lapse of time as a defence to any claim brought by the company, held the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the court does have jurisdiction to grant a licensee (as opposed to a tenant) relief from forfeiture provided that the licensee has possessory or proprietary rights (Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1100).

Forfeiture and Relief from Forfeiture

A recent case in the UK (Phones 4U Limited -v- EE Limited) serves as a warning to businesses of the unintended, and potentially costly, consequences of issuing inadequate termination notices to contractual counterparties.

Background

The Court of Appeal considers 'reasonable adjustment' in the context of possession proceedings

The first case in which the Equalities legislation has been raised as a defence to a mortgagee's claim for possession has recently been before the Court of Appeal.

'I can't be responsible for every single thing that goes on at Sports Direct. I can't be. I can't be!'

Mike Ashley founder and Executive Deputy Chairman Sports Direct appearing before the Business Innovation and Skills Select Committee (June 2016)

The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.

In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.

What happened?

As if business leaders did not have enough to contend with in the current economic and geopolitical climate, the trend towards increased personal accountability for company directors is continuing and can be expected to increase further. How can directors protect themselves? As a start it is important for both executive and non-executive directors to understand the overarching principles involved and how they link together.

The basic duties set out in the Companies Act 2006

In Banca Turco Romana S.A. (in liquidation) v Cortuk and Others, the Commercial Court in London has underlined the need for applicants to give full and frank disclosure when seeking relief at ex parte (without notice) hearings.

As a result of substantial and serious failings, some apparently deliberate, Mr Justice Popplewell set aside an earlier freezing order he had made in favour of a liquidator and declined to continue it.

Background

Directors of a company in financial distress will often turn to their professional advisors to assist in making decisions about the company’s future; whether that be their lawyers, accountants, bank, tax advisors or insolvency professionals.