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.
A recent UK Supreme Court decision establishes that where a director unlawfully transfers property to a company he controls, a subsequent breach of duty claim will not be subject to a limitation period.
The provision in question under the UK Limitation Act is mirrored in the Hong Kong Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), so it will be interesting to see whether this decision will be applied by the Hong Kong Courts.
The Supreme Court has recently held that directors who have caused company property to be transferred to another company under their control may be liable to restore the proceeds even after expiry of the six-year limitation period.
Mr and Mrs Fielding were directors and majority shareholders of Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd ("BHUK"), a holding company with trading subsidiaries including Vital Energi Utilities Ltd ("Vital Energi").
The Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) provides Trustees in bankruptcy with a number of mechanisms to reverse transactions, entered into prior to a person being declared bankrupt by the court, which have the effect of diminishing a bankrupt’s estate to the detriment of his or her creditors. Antecedent transaction claims aim to recover assets back into the bankrupt’s estate for the benefit of creditors. Some commonly used provisions are transactions at an undervalue, preferences and transactions defrauding creditors.
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: Supreme Court again considers the nature of the relationship required to find a defendant vicariously liable
A company in liquidation appealed against a decision that its claim against the directors, for breach of fiduciary or statutory duty in relation to distribution in specie of the claimant company’s shareholding in another company, was time-barred.
The case of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (in liquidation) v (1) Gary John Fielding (2) Sally Anne Fielding [2016] determined whether a claim in respect of breach of duty against two directors of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (Burnden) was time-barred. The alleged breach of duty was in connection with a distribution in specie. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and held that section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applied so that the claim was not subject to the usual period of limitation.
A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.
Facts
Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: Supreme Court again considers the nature of the relationship required to find a defendant vicariously liable