You are here: Home > Services > Negotiate a reduced period of disqualification

Negotiate a reduced period of disqualification

The period of disqualification under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is based upon your unfit conduct whilst acting as director of a company.   Another way of describing this is the extent to which your conduct fell below the standards expected of you by law.

The Court of Appeal in the case of Re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd set out a system of tariffs in which director wrongdoing was matched with escalating periods of disqualification.  In the case of Re Sevenoaks the Court of Appeal said – 

The top period of disqualification for periods over 10 years should be reserved for particularly serious cases.  These may include cases where a director who has already had one period of disqualification imposed on him falls to be disqualified yet again.

The minimum bracket of two to five years disqualification should be applied where, although disqualification is mandatory, the case is relatively, not very serious.
 
The middle bracket of disqualification from six to ten years should apply for serious cases which do not merit the top bracket.

Section 1A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 enables the Insolvency Service to accept an Undertaking from an individual that is suspected of unfit conduct where it appears in the public interest to do so.  This can be thought of as analogous to an early guilty plea in a criminal case (although disqualification proceedings are strictly civil proceedings). 

Stephen Chinnery and his team of contentious insolvency lawyers have years of experience in negotiating with the Insolvency Service to reduce the tariffs that the Insolvency Service will accept to dispose of disqualification proceedings by Undertaking.

The Sevenoaks criteria which govern the tariffs of disqualification that can be imposed are dependent upon a consideration of the following factors:

(a) what are the factual circumstances supporting an allegation that conduct fell below the standards expected by law, ie what is the unfit conduct and corresponding harm?

(b) To what extent is the directors conduct related to corresponding duties imposed upon the director by law and to what extent have those duties been breached?

The necessity of establishing both of these factors on the part of the Insolvency Service enable discussions and negotiations to take place.  Pressure can be brought to bear on the Insolvency Service in the form of costs and other procedures depending upon the circumstances.  There is therefore the possibility of a mutually acceptable outcome based around risk factors for both you and the Insolvency Service.

Request a callback

Enter your contact details and we will call you back


    Get a free case evaluation. Call now 0161 748990998