Company Finance in UK Law

Now that Morritt LJ has explained that the role of a shadow director does not necessarily extend over the whole range of the company's activities, it seems to me that there is no conceptual difficulty in concluding that a person can be both a shadow director and a de facto director simultaneously.

Their taxation would seem to be logical, but it would be destructive of joint stock company enterprise, so the Act of 1842 has, apparently, proceeded on the idea that for revenue purposes a joint stock company should be treated as a large partnership, so that the payment of income tax by a company would discharge the quasi-partners. The reason for their discharge may be the avoidance of double taxation, or to speak accurately, the avoidance of increased taxation.

It is clear that established, definite insolvency before the transaction or dealing in question is not a pre-requisite for a duty to consider the interests of creditors to arise. If, on the other hand, a company is going to be able to pay its creditors in any event, ex hypothesi there need be no such constraint on the directors.

If the company could not afford to pay out £10,000 and was doubtfully solvent so that the expenditure threatened the continued existence of the company, the directors ought to have known the facts and ought at any rate to have postponed the grant of the pension until the financial position of the company was assured.

In my judgment each ought to have concluded at or about 1 September 2004 (certainly by ( say) 14 September 2004) that there was no realistic prospect of avoiding an insolvent liquidation.

I am satisfied that whether it is to be viewed strictly as a shifting of the evidential burden or simply an example of the well-settled principle that a fiduciary is obliged to account for his dealings with the trust estate that Mr Aslett is correct to say that once the liquidator proves the relevant payment has been made the evidential burden is on the Respondents to explain the transactions in question.

The proper case is one where the administrator reasonably requires to see the documents to carry out his functions and the production does not impose an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the person required to produce them in the light of the administrator's requirements.