LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
The High Court ordered the former directors of Evershine Travel Limited (In Liquidation) to repay more than £1.4 million after treating company funds as their own and authorising unlawful dividends while the company faced a £17.58 million deficit to creditors. The case highlights the severe consequences for directors who breach duties owed under the Companies Act 2006 once a company approaches insolvency.
The High Court ordered Mr Steven Bell to repay substantial sums after causing BSS LED [R&D] Limited to enter into transactions at an undervalue and make preferential payments to connected companies, in breach of directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act 1986.
In Manolete Partners Plc v Trevor Howarth [2024] EWHC 2294 (Ch), the High Court dismissed a £101,000 claim against the former CEO of One Legal Services. Manolete alleged that repayments to Mr Howarth’s director loan account during the firm’s CVA were unlawful preferences under the Insolvency Act 1986. Judge Barber disagreed, holding the payments were made in good faith.
The High Court, per Chief ICC Judge Briggs, held that Manolete Partners could not advance misfeasance claims under section 212 Insolvency Act 1986 via an Insolvency Application, and instead had to pursue them under CPR Part 7, ordering payment of the full Part 7 issue fee despite procedural arguments about hybrid claims brought in insolvency proceedings.
The High Court ordered former director Simon Thacker to repay £33,542.20 after benefiting from the extinguishing of his director’s loan account, which was ruled a preference under s.239 Insolvency Act 1986. In contrast, claims against fellow director David Coleman were dismissed after he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of desire to prefer, despite having received £15,000 shortly before insolvency.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s dismissal of Manolete Partners’ £849,278 claim against director Ebrahim Dalal, finding the evidence for alleged unreported sales too weak to meet the civil standard of proof. The case underscores the evidential challenges liquidators face when pursuing directors for purported accounting deficiencies.