14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

11.4.2.1 Standard <strong>of</strong> Pro<strong>of</strong><br />

Disqualification <strong>of</strong> directors under the Act is a civil action, and therefore the<br />

standard <strong>of</strong> balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities applies. 305 In Re Living Images Ltd, 306 it was<br />

explained, despite the application <strong>of</strong> the lower civil standard, cogent evidence is<br />

required by the court before a disqualification order under the UK CDDA can be<br />

made, because it deals with individual personal liberty. In addition, the Court has to<br />

be alert to the danger <strong>of</strong> hindsight when analysing the position <strong>of</strong> the company at the<br />

time and the signals available to directors in the period before the company had<br />

become insolvent. 307<br />

When a court makes a disqualification order under the CDDA 1986, a director is<br />

removed ‗<strong>of</strong>f the market‘ and this may have a deterrent effect on both the director in<br />

question as well as the future directors. <strong>The</strong> director who has been disqualified may<br />

be deterred from committing the same action again and his or her punishment may<br />

also serve as an example to others so that they are not tempted to do the same. 308<br />

Hence, at first glance there seems to be no conflict between punishing a person and<br />

protecting public interests.<br />

However, when a person is disqualified as a director, the law is also imposing a<br />

restriction on his personal liberty and this is the philosophy which causes tension<br />

with the public interest theory. <strong>The</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd 309<br />

305 This is similar in all jurisdictions.<br />

306 [1996] 1 BCLC 348.<br />

307 Re Living Images Ltd [1996] 1 BCLC 348, 355-356 see also Secretary <strong>of</strong> State for Trade and<br />

Industry v Gray [1995] 1 BCLC 276.<br />

308 <strong>The</strong> same line <strong>of</strong> arguments is brought up in Australian case Australian Securities and Investments<br />

Commission v Donovan (1998) 28 ACSR 583 at [125-127].<br />

309 [1988] Ch 477; the court stated at 485-486 ―What is the proper approach to deciding whether<br />

someone is unfit to be a director? <strong>The</strong> approach adopted in all the cases to which I have been<br />

referred is broadly the same. <strong>The</strong> primary purpose <strong>of</strong> the section is not to punish the individual<br />

but to protect the public against the future conduct <strong>of</strong> companies by persons whose past records<br />

as directors <strong>of</strong> insolvent companies have shown them to be a danger to creditors and others.<br />

385

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!