Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
*Stop press (9 January 2017) - liquidators have applied for permission to appeal the decision*
How important is it for an insolvency office-holder to quantify the increase in the net deficiency to creditors in support of a wrongful trading claim? Chloe Poskitt and Emma Taylor, both associates at Browne Jacobson, review the appeal decision in Brooks v Armstrong.
Brooks and another (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc in liquidation) v Armstrong and another  EWHC 2893 (Ch),  All ER (D) 117 (Nov)
The Chancery Division allowed, in part, a cross-appeal by the directors of a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation against an order that they were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of £35,000 for wrongful trading. The directors had argued that the process by which the registrar had calculated the compensation payable by them had been unfair. The court held that the liquidators had failed, in the earlier proceedings, to advance and establish a properly formulated case that there had been any increase in net deficiency of the company during the period of wrongful trading, and that, on the approach adopted and facts found by the registrar, there had been no such increase. Accordingly, it held that the registrar should not have ordered any payment by the directors to the liquidators, under section 214(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).
This appeal judgment serves as a useful reminder—hot on the heels of Re Ralls Builders Ltd  EWHC 243 (Ch),  All ER (D) 142 (Feb)—of the risk of a pyrrhic victory when pursuing wrongful trading actions if claims are not properly particularised by quantifying the increase in net deficiency and any additional losses properly attributable to a wrongful decision to continue trading. The benefits of obtaining expert evidence to substantiate such losses should also not be overlooked.
The liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc issued an application seeking the sum of £701,000 from the directors of the company for misfeasance and wrongful trading.
The liquidators had alleged various dates (the most likely being 9 October 2006) on which they claimed the directors knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvent liquidation (the Knowledge Condition).
Registrar Jones found that the directors had the requisite knowledge at 31 January 2007 but that they had not been wrong to continue trading, at least until 3 May 2007, because, up to that point, they had been taking steps to minimise further losses to the company’s creditors (the Minimising Loss Defence).
The directors were ordered to pay compensation calculated at £35,000 by reference to a deficiency comparison between the date of a hypothetical liquidation on 3 May 2007 and the actual date of liquidation on 6 February 2009.
For further reading on Registrar Jones' first instance decision, see blog post: Establishing the requirements of a wrongful trading claim.
The liquidators appealed and the directors cross-appealed.
The liquidators sought to challenge Registrar Jones’:
At the same time, the directors sought to challenge Registrar Jones’ conclusion that wrongful trading had occurred at all and, if it had, as to the amount of compensation to be paid.
The liquidators’ main grounds of appeal
The directors’ grounds of appeal
The liquidators’ grounds of appeal
Calculating compensation under IA 1986, s 214
The deputy judge refused to follow the approach in Re Purpoint and Re Kudos Business Solutions on the basis that, despite the missing financial information, it was still possible to perform ‘increase in net deficiency’ calculations. The liquidators had been able to do so albeit that the registrar had considered their calculations to be deficient. The facts were distinguishable from Re Purpoint and Re Kudos Business Solutions in that the directors had not failed to keep records contemporaneously (they had clearly done so as they had been regularly audited). The issue was simply that certain records had not been collected by the liquidators. The liquidators argued that the directors had breached their duty to produce the company’s papers and were responsible for their absence. However, given the lapse of time and other relevant factors, the registrar declined to decide that issue.
The standard of care expected when assessing a directors’ knowledge
The registrar had applied the correct test when assessing Mr Armstrong’s conduct and was entitled to take into account the features he had when assessing the director’s knowledge as at 9 October 2006. It was significant that the registrar had seen and assessed for himself how the witnesses (including Mr Armstrong) had performed under cross-examination and that nothing had been presented on appeal to suggest that Mr Armstrong’s other experience should be grafted upon the standard of the reasonably diligent person so far as relevant to the specific issues which faced the company on 9 October 2006.
Relevant factors when assessing a directors’ knowledge and conduct
Challenges to the company’s supposed profitability had not been raised at trial and it was by no means certain that if changes had had to be made to the VAT scheme that that would have precluded the company from continuing to generate a profit. The registrar had properly relied on a full range of considerations to reach his conclusions including that the directors ought to be 'entitled to time to investigate what to do rather than to be criticised for acting too quickly', that there were 'many potential avenues to investigate' and that an immediate liquidation would not have benefitted the company’s creditors in any event.
The effect of depreciation on the Minimising Loss Defence
The deputy judge was satisfied that no inconsistency existed between finding that the assets of the company would have realised little or nothing on a sale within a liquidation and that the assets could still continue to generate positive cash flow within the business while it was still operating. It was also relevant that the negative effect of the assets’ depreciation had already occurred by 31 January 2007 and was not worsened through continued use.
The issue of the directors’ honesty was only one of a number of factors referred to by the registrar and which he was entitled to consider as part of his balancing exercise when assessing the level of compensation to be paid by them.
When assessing the Knowledge Condition, the registrar was entitled to draw inferences based on the evidence presented to him and the deputy judge was satisfied that the registrar had done so without the use of hindsight.
The deputy judge was persuaded that, whilst motivated by the right reasons, the registrar had erred in applying an analysis which had not been advanced by either party and which had not been the subject of submissions at the hearing. Had the registrar’s analysis been considered at the hearing the directors would have been entitled to raise legitimate objections to it, either on the basis that there was insufficient evidence on relevant issues, or because, if the analysis was followed through to a proper conclusion, there would have been no compensation payable.
This case highlights the complexities and difficulties of bringing a wrongful trading action and quantifying the losses for which directors could be made liable. It also provides useful guidance on the limited circumstances when it will be permissible to depart from the practice of calculating the ‘increase in net deficiency’ necessary to establish the losses caused by delaying an unavoidable insolvent liquidation.
Interviewed by Stephen Leslie.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
If you are a LexisPSL Subscriber, click the link below for further information:
Wrongful trading claims under sections 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the process for bringing the claim
A summary checklist and timeline for bringing misfeasance, fraudulent trading and wrongful trading claims under sections 212, 213, 246ZA, 214 and 246ZB of the Insolvency Act 1986
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
0330 161 1234