If a transaction by a company amounts to an "unlawful distribution", and the company subsequently goes into liquidation, will an action for recovery of the benefits of that distribution, brought against the directors who authorised the transaction, be statute-barred if it is commenced by the liquidator of the company more than 6 years after the distribution was made?

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.

The Limitation Act 1980 prescribes various periods of time in which a claim must be brought. In the event that this is not undertaken within the specified period, the cause of action will be statute barred and as such unenforceable.

In the case of a simple contract, the period is six years and in general begins to run from the date on which the cause of action accrued. In order to 'stop the clock', proceedings (a claim) will have to be brought.

When a company goes into administration, time does not stop running against its creditors' claims for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. This is different to where a company goes into liquidation as time does then stop running. The effect there is that the claim stays live whereas in an administration, once the limitation period has expired, the claim is time-barred.

The bank took a charge on the borrowers’ property. In January 1992, it demanded payment of the balance due under the secured facilities. In June 1992, it made a further formal demand specifically relying on the mortgage. One of the borrowers was subsequently made bankrupt. Periodically, the bank informed the borrowers that they continued to be liable and made demands for payment and referred to the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a limitation order (providing for the restoration to the register of a dissolved company, C,  and the suspension of the limitation period during dissolution) and provided guidance on how judicial discretion should be exercised when making such an order.

Shortly before being placed into administration C entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement.  C later went into liquidation; however, the purchase price in respect of the sale was not received before the company was dissolved, over four years later.

Insolvent Defendants

Corporate Insolvency

Dissolution

1. Corporate bodies (limited companies or LLPs) have a separate legal identity that ceases to exist upon dissolution. Dissolution can occur, broadly speaking, in two ways, one is at the end of the process of winding up (whether voluntary or compulsory) and the other is by the process of striking off the Register of Companies 

or limited liability partnerships. The latter occurs either as a result of the company’s

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").