Tag: director liability | LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers

Directors Exposed to Personal Liability in the Twilight Period (Insolvency Act 1986)

Directors who continue trading after they knew, or ought to have concluded, that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation or administration may face personal liability under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. During the period in which a company is insolvent or nearing insolvency, directors’ decisions may also come under closer scrutiny, particularly where losses to creditors increase.

HMRC, Security Notice, Notice of Requirement, NOR, Tax Tribunal, Lexlaw, Tax Disputes, Director Liability, VAT Security, PAYE Security, Revenue Protection, Michael Duma, Harriot Rockey, Keith Gordon, Tax Litigation Solicitors.

Case Study: HMRC Security Notices Overturned – Duma & Rockey v HMRC (Tax Tribunal Appeal)

We are the leading firm representing Directors and Companies facing HMRC Security Notices and we regularly succeed on behalf of clients. Here, our counsel successfully fought HMRC Security Notices that sought to impose over £215,000 in personal liability for VAT and PAYE debts. The case is a landmark victory against HMRC Notices of Requirement to give Security.

Post date 14 February 2026
Post author By LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Post categories In Case Law, Case Study, Company Insolvency, Costs, First Tier Tax Tribunal, HMRC, Insolvency, Litigation, Tax Law, Taxation
Tags director liability, Harriot Rockey, HMRC, Michael Duma, NOR, Notice of Requirement, PAYE Security, Revenue Protection, Security Notice, Tax Disputes, Tax Litigation Solicitors., Tax Tribunal, VAT Security

Manolete Case Study: Directors Found Liable for Misfeasance and Dishonest Assistance (Breach of Insolvency Duties)

The High Court held that Ronojoy Nag was liable for misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty after diverting company assets during insolvency, while his wife Amanda Nag was found liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt, ordering both to account for misapplied funds.

Post date 19 September 2025
Post author By Hasanat Akbar
Post categories In Case Study, Civil Litigation, Commericial Contracts, Director's Duties, Directors Disqualification, High Court, HMCTS, Insolvency, Insolvency Litigation, Litigation, Manolete, Winding-up Petitions
Tags director liability, Director Misfeasance, dishonest assistance, Insolvency, Insolvency Litigation, Litigation, Manolete, Manolete Partners claim

"High Court mandates £0.92m repayment by director for breaching insolvency duties, clarifying creditor priority and litigation funders' rights in director misconduct cases."

Manolete Case Study: Court orders Director to Repay £0.92m (Director’s Insolvency Duty Breach)

Manolete pusured a Direcors Claim against Director Norman Freed. The High Court ordered the director to repay £918,590 for funnelling monies to linked firms pre-insolvency, breaching duties under the Companies Act 2006 and Insolvency Act 1986.

Post date 7 May 2025
Post author By LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Post categories In Case Law, Case Study, Director's Duties, Directors Disqualification, High Court, Insolvency, Litigation
Tags asset protection solicitors, circularity defence, creditor prioritisation, director liability, Freed v Manolete, Insolvency, Insolvency Act 1986, Litigation, litigation funding risks, Manolete Partners claims, wrongful trading defence

Directors Exposed to Personal Liability in the Twilight Period (Insolvency Act 1986)

Case Study: HMRC Security Notices Overturned – Duma & Rockey v HMRC (Tax Tribunal Appeal)

Manolete Case Study: Directors Found Liable for Misfeasance and Dishonest Assistance (Breach of Insolvency Duties)

Manolete Case Study: Court orders Director to Repay £0.92m (Director’s Insolvency Duty Breach)

£115m UK Palace Insufficient for Service of NBD Bankruptcy Petition on Qatari

Winning on Appeal: Reversing Judicial Errors in Coghlan v Lexlaw [2026]

Defending Claims Brought by Liquidators: A UK Director’s Guide

Defeating HMRC’s £1m VAT Assessment

Consumer Credit Act 1974 Reform: What Borrowers Need to Know